Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "There's no reason to "describe" my comments." Your comments, of course, and anyone else's, are exactly what are discussed here. I'd offer you're the one trying to drag personalities into it. "I don't believe there is a law in any state that prevents gay people from getting married." Oh really? Been to any gay weddings lately? Know anybody who's been to one?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your comments, of course, and anyone else's, are exactly what are discussed here.> I have no problem with you discussing my comments. What I find offensive is your dismissing them with a derogatory adjective. <Oh really? Been to any gay weddings lately? Know anybody who's been to one?> What does that have to do with my comment?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "What I find offensive is your dismissing them with a derogatory adjective." Sorry, but your comments on this subject just beg for it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Hmmmm...that was weird. I guess I should have turned the page before I posted. Sorry Tom< It was worth repeating, TiggerToo.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Not a good answer. What if I love my brother and want to marry him? What if two sisters love each other and want to get married? Is that OK?<< It's against the law for two people who are that closely related to get married. That would remain the case if marriage laws were applied equally to all citizen regardless of gender.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What gay marriage supporters want to do is CHANGE THE RULES of what marriage is to fit their lifestyle.<< What gay marriage opponents want to do is apply the law differently based on what sex someone is.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>What gay marriage advocates are talking about is forcing the state and everyone else to recognize their unions, and I just don't see that as an inalienable right.<< But it is a right that is recognized by the state based on an exclusionary definition of who can be involved. The laws that exist that apply to some sexes do not apply equally to all. You may not see it as an inalienable right, but then there were a lot of people that didn't think that the right to not be a slave was inalienable either.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Please stop making personal attacks and respond to the arguments with facts." Doug, I can't believe you're actually saying this. I really can't. I came to this thread late and just read the last 60 or so posts. You just got spanked. Big time. It was a thrashing of epic proportions. Other people posted facts and the very evidence you said you wanted. Tom posted three different articles. You didn't respond. You've offered *zero* beyond your typical one-liners of "Nuh uh!" and "'Cause I said so!" You can't tell someone else to respond to arguments if you haven't made any. They've made the arguments, you've cowered behind a rock somewhere instead of responding. You've brought nothing to the table but demand it of others. This thread might as well be closed, because this debate was over long ago, with very clear winners.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And Doug, if Admin thought I made any personal attacks, they would have been long gone by now.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it is a right that is recognized by the state based on an exclusionary definition of who can be involved.> Yes, but there are many such laws. <The laws that exist that apply to some sexes do not apply equally to all.> The laws applies equally to both sexes.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug, if Admin thought I made any personal attacks, they would have been long gone by now.> I wasn't aware the Admin were omnipresent and omnipotent. I'm sure they miss things now and then.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I wasn't aware the Admin were omnipresent and omnipotent. I'm sure they miss things now and then." Trust me. When it comes to me, their radar is set on stun.
Originally Posted By ecdc "If you can't reply with a decent argument, then don't waste your time." I would (and have in the past) but I'm not exactly in the mood to think through a post, only to have your "decent argument" be "no it isn't." You seem to think that constitutes all sorts of evidence. You can call my post stupid (talk about personal attacks) all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that I read through 60+ posts, saw person after person making excellent point after excellent point, only to have your response be "no." Douglas, you're the one arguing for denying gays equal rights under the law. The burden of proof is on you - not on everyone else until they come up with an argument that you feel is actually worthy of your precious time and attention.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Douglas, you're the one arguing for denying gays equal rights under the law. >> ] Lets see here.... "equal rights under the law" ... Again, EVERYONE has equal rights. What you gay marriage fans want to do is change the present set up laws and rules to fit the gay lifestyle. Why is this so hard to understand? Even liberals must be able to see that just because they WANT to marry the same sex, that doesn't make it discrimination when the law says otherwise. What's next? Little johhny the 13 year old screaming he's discriminated against because he can't drive a car?? Don't like the law, get the law changed. Problem is, you all know gay marriage when voted on NEVER wins, now does it? Maybe the extremists are the gay marriage crowd??
Originally Posted By cmpaley ^^^ Redactio ad absurdio. At least I argue that marriage is a Sacrament of the Church that must, by definition, be defined by the Church and that the State has no business confecting sacraments, so eliminate the legal idea of "marriage" and replace it with another name and leave the confecting of Sacraments to religion.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I would (and have in the past) but I'm not exactly in the mood to think through a post, only to have your "decent argument" be "no it isn't."> It's irritating, isn't it? It's sort of like writing a logical defense of the current marriage laws, and having someone accuse you of being a bigot, or having them dismiss your argument as stupid or sad. <Douglas, you're the one arguing for denying gays equal rights under the law.> No, I'm not. I'm arguing the state recognition of marriage is not a right, but instead is a priviledge granted to certain people for the good of society.
Originally Posted By scottie <<I'm arguing the state recognition of marriage is not a right, but instead is a priviledge granted to certain people for the good of society.>> If you are really arguing that it should only be granted to certain people for the good of society then I know plenty of us straight men and woman who should be banned from marriage as well. Why single out homosexuals? They should have the "priveledge" of getting married, divorcing and screwing up kids just like we do.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Why single out homosexuals?> I've explained why. Try going back a few pages.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The laws applies equally to both sexes.<< Okay then - give me a definition of marriage that does not refer to the gender/sex of the people it applies to. If the law applies equally, it must be gender-neutral. Go ahead.
