Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No, it convinces me that gay marriages are not legally recognized in Minnesota. As I said earlier.>> Then you are blind.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>They weren't valid, but they were not illegal. You'd think a lawyer would know that words have meanings.<< More semantic games that contribute nothing to the discussion and only waste bandwith! Hooray!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "More semantic games that contribute nothing to the discussion and only waste bandwith! Hooray!" Exactly. As if we needed more proof that parsing even the smallest thing is his vocation.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <<While I'm sure gay marriages are not recognized by the State of Minnesota, I doubt anyone is fined or jailed for taking part in them. >> Come on, Dub. We all knew what he meant when he wrote it, and there simply was no need at all for you to come in and start something like this. None. Nobody was thinking "jail" for heaven's sake. A week away and you were just itching for a fight in World Events? Get a grip.
Originally Posted By RC Collins So it is okay to judge. Got it. I never want to read you criticizing someone for judging another.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <We all knew what he meant when he wrote it, and there simply was no need at all for you to come in and start something like this.> Maybe, maybe not. But there's certainly no need to try to defend sloppy language, and attack someone for pointing out that sloppy language.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Maybe, maybe not. But there's certainly no need to try to defend sloppy language, and attack someone for pointing out that sloppy language." Oh.get.over.yourself. So it's okay for you to rile up the thread by inserting yourself and pointing out alleged "sloppy language", but no one is supposed to tell you to lighten up about it? You're simply spoiling for a fight, for whatever reason.
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Illegal" and "not legal" are not synonomous. Got it. A small victory, douglas - let's move on.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Maybe, maybe not. But there's certainly no need to try to defend sloppy language, and attack someone for pointing out that sloppy language.>> Sloppy language and spelling are typically pointed out when the poster is unable to add anything of intelligence to the conversation.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Sloppy language and spelling are typically pointed out when the poster is unable to add anything of intelligence to the conversation. >>> Or want to deliberately sidetrack the conversation away from the matter at hand. Or, when they can't say anything convincing in support of their position, resort to trying to show that the other person is wrong in some way - after all, if the other side is wrong, then they must be right by default, right? These are all well-worn techniques used in debates, in PR situations, and by politicians and talking heads. The thing is, here on LP, we have something that you typically don't get in those other settings: the ability to point out when these obfuscation and distraction techniques are being used as well as continue the discussion about the core issue, since we really don't have a time limit other than our collective attention span.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Please not that I think Disney has every right to run their parks as they want to, including offering these ceremonies to all. I just think the first sentence of that quote is poorly worded.> I also wish Disney hadn't used the word "lifestyle," since sexual orientation, unlike polygamy and incest, is intrinsic to the individual, and so what is being changed here is not recognition of a "lifestyle," but a recognition that (gasp!) not everybody is heterosexual, and thus not excluding homosexuals from taking part in these ceremonies.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So it's okay for you to rile up the thread by inserting yourself and pointing out alleged "sloppy language", but no one is supposed to tell you to lighten up about it?> I have no problem with someone telling me to lighten up. But if you go back and read my comment, I think it's pretty clear I was being "light". <You're simply spoiling for a fight, for whatever reason.> No, I'm not. But apparently you are.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <A small victory, douglas - let's move on.> I don't consider it one, and it appears some people don't want to move on. They'd rather make personal attacks than add anything of intelligence to the conversation.
Originally Posted By Liberty Belle Not to hijack the conversation back to the original topic, but I think it's a positive step.
Originally Posted By jonvn Please ignore him. RC Collins is actually taking a stand on the issue, one I vehemently disagree with but it at least is on topic. Can't you guys just argue with him? At least he's talking about the subject matter. Stop playing this guy's game already.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I love it when RC comes around. I'm the first to say that he takes on odious positions, but you're right - he stakes out an actual position rather than just throwing tomotoes from the sidelines.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I understand where RC is coming from. I feel that the argument is valid only if the first statement is taken out of the context of the issue at hand. But it was presented in a fairly specific context.
Originally Posted By jonvn you know, really. What should disney care what people do. It's not their business. I know this may sound weird but if any adult individuals want to carry on any kind of relationship, it's really not the concern of anyone else, as long as no one else gets hurt. that's the bottom line. Basic personal freedom.
Originally Posted By gadzuux The "real" bottom line more couples purchasing these ceremony packages. It's business. This decision brings in more revenue and potentially avoids any legal vulnerabilities over equal access and/or discrimination. And RCs point isn't any more valid now than when it was raised years ago - specifically the old tired claptrap about bestiality and polygamy.
Originally Posted By SuperDry ... and it's basically the same argument that was made against interracial marriage decades ago. And I find it absolutely fascinating that today's argument generally speaking comes from same demographic that was against interracial marriage back then.
