Originally Posted By Mr X ***A society without heterosexual relationships would cease to exist in a generation*** Untrue.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <NOT to mention the fact that in this day and age procreation is not particularly desirable for a grossly overpopulated planet full of orphans in need of foster care.> One, this planet is not grossly overpopulated. Two, it's not full of orphans in need of foster care. Do you have any idea how hard it is to adopt a baby?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This is where my boy Doug tells us that childless marriages do not benefit society, further insulting childless couples everywhere.> I'm not your boy, and it's only insulting if you make it. Why should you be insulted by the truth?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And of course everyone knows that the gays don't contribute anything to society.> Well done. Another strawman vanquished.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The more I read it, the angrier I become. I find it appalling. I find it hateful, discriminatory, homophobic, ignorant and misanthropic. It should only be treated with contempt, disgust and a complete lack of respect. It's straight out of a Klan meeting.> I find your post to be completely idiotic, and typical of someone who feels, rather than thinks. And who believes an insult can substitute for an argument.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <By this reasoning, if blacks were equal to whites, they should have been able to convince the people of that through the democratic process, rather than running to activist judges to overturn democratically passed Jim Crow laws.> Not even close.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Our boy Doug wrote the piece that contains this nugget as a way of mocking the entire subject- but he does whine about "activist judges" every chance he gets.> Again, I'm not your boy, and if you persist in this denigration I will ask the moderator to strike your posts. Two, I don't whine. I leave that to those who argue emotions, rather than facts and logic. <This particular passage of course is ignorant of the fact they can't just "run to "activist judges" (And what is an activist judge? Any judge our boy disagrees with) without having either a bad law passed or a proper plaintiff arise. You can't decide one day to file a suit to make a new law.> What "bad law" did this decision overturn? When was it passed? What "proper plaintiff" arose that wasn't there five years ago? Ten years ago? Twenty years ago? There was nothing ignorant in my passage.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>A society without heterosexual relationships would cease to exist in a generation. A society without homosexual relationships would continue on.<< You're wrong. You're confusing "relationships" with "copulating." We could pair off men and women randomly in rooms and have them mate. There would be no need for your marriage at that point. Is that what you're advocating? Because otherwise, your argument is without merit.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Again, I'm not your boy, and if you persist in this denigration I will ask the moderator to strike your posts.*** ***Two, I don't whine.*** You DO realize that you wrote these two sentences back to back, right? Bwahahahaha. Weak (although now we know who calls the cops in when people write stuff that Doug doesn't like). Tres weak.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm not your boy, and it's only insulting if you make it. Why should you be insulted by the truth?<< Because it's not "the truth." And you labeling it as such doesn't make it so. It's no different than taking anything else that's a reality of someone's life and denigrating it. If I said, "All Reagan Republicans whose name starts with the letter 'D' are not as good for society as Clinton Democrats whose name starts with the letter 'D,'" you might be insulted. And if you said something, I could of course just say, "Why would you be insulted by the truth," which would be just as meaningless and lazy response as yours. Of course, one's personal politics aren't as important as one's family relationships, so your insinuation is far more insulting.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***We could pair off men and women randomly in rooms and have them mate. There would be no need for your marriage at that point*** Even beyond that, in this day and age there's no need for sexual relationships of any kind in order to continue the species. But, when you have no logical arguments to make, specious ones must suffice I suppose.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I find your post to be completely idiotic, and typical of someone who feels, rather than thinks. And who believes an insult can substitute for an argument.<< That's very ironic. It's quite clear your original offensive comments were done to "lash out" after being ganged up on and losing argument after argument. You thought you'd stir the pot with some mean-spirited comments directed at certain people here, then you follow it up with it's the "truth" that SPP's marriage isn't as good as mine since I have kids. It's not hard for anyone to see that you're directing your ire at Dabob2 because you know he's gay and you're frustrated that he routinely outwits and out-argues you, reducing you to meaningless one-liners that offers nothing to the conversation, but still allows you to have the last word.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Even beyond that, in this day and age there's no need for sexual relationships of any kind in order to continue the species.<< A very good point. So then, how do we break-down which relationships are the most beneficial to society? Is it the ones that agree with Doug? I of course could point out that I'm raising my children as Atheists, therefore my relationship is of more value than others because my kids won't be inflicted with the disease of religion. But I'm not actually stupid enough to say that because, A) I don't think it's really true and B) I'm sensitive enough to others to know it's offensive. But some people lack that judgment, I guess.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Again, I'm not your boy, and if you persist in this denigration I will ask the moderator to strike your posts. Two, I don't whine. I leave that to those who argue emotions, rather than facts and logic." Angry? Good. I want you to be spitting blood angry. I want you to pissed enough to kick the dog, break your monitor and bang your head against the wall. Then maybe, jut maybe, you'll feel one-tenth the anger your posts generate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I find your post to be completely idiotic, and typical of someone who feels, rather than thinks. And who believes an insult can substitute for an argument." I'd rather feel than be you any day.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And boy, what the hell is that lately, Doug? Is this your new argument? "Typical of someone who feels"? You've said this a few times now. Did "you're projecting run its course even for you? Are you actually saying there ought to be no feeling, compassion or concern for others when dealing with societal issues? I'll take that ANY day over the way you think. ANY day.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But, when you have no logical arguments to make, specious ones must suffice I suppose.> You guys would know.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/05/gay.deaths.iraq/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/...dex.html</a> Here's some other people that didn't think gay relationships were very beneficial to society.
