Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Dabob's comments. But I've shown he was wrong before, and I'll show that he's still wrong. I should have some time tomorrow night.
Originally Posted By Elderp "Were you trying to imply that no Mormon would say such a thing?" No, but I don't think it is right to put a vague blame on someone. As far as blacks goes I don't think God ever hated blacks. I will say I don't understand why blacks didn't have the priesthood. I can't debate with you there as I am still researching that one out. I will admit that on that issue I don't have an answer, I hope to understand it one day, but right now I don't.
Originally Posted By Elderp "He also said he'd be for plural marriages if the church told him that was what he needed to do." I would too, don't want to have a plural wife, don't think it is going to happen, but other than the logistical reasons I don't see why that is any different than any other types of relationships out there.
Originally Posted By Elderp I need to take back part of that last statement. I think plural marriages are really different than most traditional marriages. Like I said, the logistics behind such a marriage is crazy, I have no idea how you could keep that family intact. What I meant to say is I don't see how it is legally different than other types of relationships. If you can't tell I REALLY hope the church never brings it back.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "No, I only accuse people of twisting my words or making personal attacks when they twist my words and make personal attacks. If you'd like me to stop the accusations, then stop the behavior." I quit taking you seriously a long time ago. You've long since become a parody of yourself, so have at it. We need the entertainment.
Originally Posted By X-san ***No, but I don't think it is right to put a vague blame on someone.*** You prefer direct blame, then. Look, I enjoy chatting with you and coming onto LP for interesting conversations, but I hope I've been around long enough for people to know I don't bother with telling lies to "advance my position" or anything ridiculous like that. The whole idea of it is a touch insulting. So if you shoot back a comment like "prove it or drop it", don't expect a nice reply from me. ***As far as blacks goes I don't think God ever hated blacks.*** I think that if you really believe there is a god, to insinuate even the POSSIBILITY that he/she actually HATES anyone (let alone an entire RACE) is pretty darned insulting to your deity. If I were god, I'd take offense at such suggestions. ***I will say I don't understand why blacks didn't have the priesthood.*** Nothing to "understand". The group was prejudiced, and then couldn't get away with it anymore so they "miraculously" changed. Interesting that it "miraculously" occurred in the 1970's, right around the time where garbage like that was no longer tolerated in American society. What a coincidence! I guess god was really paying attention to the civil rights movement and decided to change his tune as well. Will wonders never cease. ***I can't debate with you there as I am still researching that one out.*** There's nothing you could offer in a debate that would chance my opinion that racism is evil. ***I will admit that on that issue I don't have an answer, I hope to understand it one day, but right now I don't.*** Understand what? Why the Mormons were racists? What's to understand? There's no way on earth you can offer a reasonable retort to the facts at hand, something that would somehow "soften" the racism they exhibited. So why try. The were wrong. Accept it and move on. Anything else imho is an insult to god, if you really believe in one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I quit taking you seriously a long time ago. You've long since become a parody of yourself, so have at it.> I feel the same about you, except most parodies are funny.
Originally Posted By X-san You are nothing if not funny, Douglas. Although I must admit the few glimpses I've had of you actually attempting to have a conversation rather than throw around debating tactics have resulting in my hoping, every time I see your reply in a topic, that there might be a chance for some interesting comments there. When your reply is inevitably more along the boring and annoying lines of "Doug, Master Debtor", it's pretty disappointing...not as funny as it used to be (pathetic, really..since you've recently proven you can OCCASIONALLY be capable of real and thoughtful replies).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's hard to reply thoughtfully when there's nothing thoughtful to reply to.
Originally Posted By X-san You ignored my question several times about why infertile couples should or should not be banned from the practice of marriage, and how how exactly they are different from homosexual couples in terms of ability to procreate. Why not start with that?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Dabob's comments. But I've shown he was wrong before, and I'll show that he's still wrong.> Please. You asserted I was wrong the last time we went into this, but "showed" nothing to anyone's satisfaction but your own. You often confuse the two. Meanwhile, I've already shown you to be wrong in your assertion that "There simply is no other candidate to explain why the decline in marriage increased when gay marriage was adopted." The mere fact that you can assert this when there was a very obvious alternate candidate - the change in legal status for non-married STRAIGHT couples - shows how blinkered your view is. <I should have some time tomorrow night.> We'll be waiting with bated breath.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You ignored my question several times about why infertile couples should or should not be banned from the practice of marriage, and how how exactly they are different from homosexual couples in terms of ability to procreate. Why not start with that?> Don't hold your breath, X-san. Last time around, I posed a similar question: why don't we disallow post-menopausal women from marrying, since we know they won't be producing any children? DD's answer? Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You ignored my question several times about why infertile couples should or should not be banned from the practice of marriage, and how how exactly they are different from homosexual couples in terms of ability to procreate<< He ignored it because it is the first of several loose threads that make his argument against gay marriage unravel. It's easier to play the victim than it is to own up to one's own bigotry. No thinking person would take pride in their bigotry, they'd be ashamed of it, and seek for ways to explain it away. The discomfort is understandable. Clinging to the bigotry in spite of the discomfort is not.
Originally Posted By mele Dabob, you'll never get Doug to believe the sources he cites aren't true just as we'll never believe they are true. It's a complete waste of time. You've tried so many times but he only reads these posts to pick through them. He DOESN'T want to change his mind. There's nothing you could say that would change it. What's most frustrating is he refuses to discuss all of the many, many OTHER points people bring up about gay marriage. Maybe because his links don't talk about any of those points so they clearly aren't important to him. He just clings to the study that shows what he wants it to say and ignores the rest and says that no one ever posts anything "thoughtful". Amazingly, year after year, no one has ever posted anything thoughtful? That comment alone shows how his mind works and shows what a complete waste of time talking with him is. Many wonderful points have been brought up here and he ignores them all and parrots the same response. Cling to your study, Doug. It just keeps getting older and more obsolete, as do the people who are against gay marriage. More and more people see how wrong it is to ban it. Thankfully, you only get one vote and you certainly haven't convinced anyone else here why they should vote against it. Waste of time, people. Waste of time.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Dabob's comments. But I've shown he was wrong before, and I'll show that he's still wrong.*** What a moronic, dismissive and stupid thing to say. "I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's wrong" Sounds like something Limbaugh would say.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, you'll never get Doug to believe the sources he cites aren't true just as we'll never believe they are true. > You know, mele, you're probably right. The reason I keep it up has to do with something we talked about earlier about engaging these attitudes in the first place - there are a lot of people who lurk here who don't post. I'm really talking to them half the time. I know quite a few people in my life who used to oppose gay marriage who came around to favor it, just as I had a lot of southern family members earlier in my life who used to support segregation in the 60's, then came to see they were wrong. They didn't change their minds overnight in either case - it was a long, slow process. There are undoubtedly people out there (I've met some of them), who say "you know, I've heard that when they legalized gay marriage in Europe, straight marriage rates went down." Just a vague "I heard that..." kind of thing, without any real investigation. Perhaps if there's someone here in that boat, they'll read the studies Doug clings to, read our comments on them, and understand how flimsy and non-credible those studies are. Perhaps that person comes to understand "oh - they also changed the legal status for unmarried straight couples at this time. That makes more sense for why more straight people wouldn't get married." So although it seems I'm responding to Doug, half the time I realize he's mule-headed on this on and I'm really responding to others who might be reading. Screwing in the light bulb slowly, half a turn at a time, so that maybe eventually (perhaps only after years, as with my relatives and segregation), the light bulb comes on.
Originally Posted By X-san ***why don't we disallow post-menopausal women from marrying, since we know they won't be producing any children? DD's answer? Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.*** Seems to me that if this institution is so essential and vital to society, and so vulnerable at the same time such that gays could actually harm it, it stands to reason that there needs to be some real criteria attached to the awarding of a marriage license. At the moment, the only requirement is exactly one penis and one vagina. According to the argument Douglas is putting forth, the only legitimate candidates for marriage from a societal standpoint are fully fertile couples who INTEND to make babies. Thus there should be intensive physical and psychological testing involved, to make certain both members are fit to conceive, and to elicit SOME sort of reasonable proof that conception will be forthcoming. Elderly people, sterile people, pro-choice people, unwilling to conceive people, and of course people who might consider adoption in liu of conception need to be purged post-haste, for the good of all society. Overpopulation is a myth, after all. And what else is marriage for anyway? While we're at it, we should also exlude short people, stupid people, diseased people, and anyone else who might contaminate the gene pool by conceiving what in all likelihood would be inferior offspring. Obviously this is necessary for a perfect, strong, undiseased and untainted society. Blond, six feet tall, and white is, of course, ideal.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Elderly people, sterile people, pro-choice people, unwilling to conceive people, and of course people who might consider adoption in liu of conception need to be purged post-haste, for the good of all society.<< And people who send text messages in movie theaters!!! (In all seriousness, post 297 makes EXCELLENT points on this topic and slams that whole bizarre line of reasoning, X-san).
Originally Posted By X-san Thanks, K2M. Glad you appreciate my comments (always enjoy reading yours!). Which brings us to...
