Page 98 of 159 FirstFirst ... 488896979899100108148 ... LastLast
Results 971 to 980 of 1585

Thread: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

  1. #971
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And I've tutored in both statistics and research methods, along with conducting my own studies using and analyzing statistics. So I admit that you are wrong.

    I'm not big on the presentation of credentials. Pretty boring and pointless.
    Ya know what they say, "those that cannot do, teach".




    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    You have STILL not responded to my question/challenge... one I have posted several times already. If you would like me to address your question, address mine. Please provide any evidence that procreation is listed as a requirement on any marriage licensing paperwork. Links are required.
    You really need to stop this repeated dishonest assertion, and it is dishonest and you know it is.

    Nowhere in my statements did I indicate any sort of "requirement" to procreate, but rather you inserted that requirement by flaw of logic, and imagine you have a real point. You may imagine it's a valid approach, but it's jejune.

    The recognition of marriage because hetero couples CAN procreate, and overall DO procreate, and DO populate society, providing its backbone, does not begin to compensate for gay couples that CANNOT EVER procreate between themselves, and NEVER DO populate society, and will never be the equivalent of marriage.

    You need to also stop having mods back you up with false infractions of baiting and locking me out of discussions,...while you make serial accusations of my being a liar and dishonest, ... unless of course you just can't hack it. Your hands are very dirty.
    Last edited by Trip; 06-27-13 at 06:24 AM.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  2. #972
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Ya know what they say, "those that cannot do, teach".
    And yet I've done both... and both successfully. I suppose that means I'm just an amazing aberration.

    You really need to stop this repeated dishonest assertion, and it is dishonest and you know it is.
    You keep making the claim that biology and the ability to procreate are integral parts to marriage. So I have challenged you to prove it... which you have refused to do. Let's see how you did, below.

    Nowhere in my statements did I indicate any sort of "requirement" to procreate, but rather you inserted that requirement by flaw of logic, and imagine you have a real point. You may imagine it's a valid approach, but it's jejune.

    The recognition of marriage because hetero couples CAN procreate, and overall DO procreate, and DO populate society, providing its backbone, does not begin to compensate for gay couples that CANNOT EVER procreate between themselves, and NEVER DO procreate between themselves, and will never be the equivalent of marriage.
    Nope. Didn't answer my question. The recognition of marriage has been explained to you, repeatedly. Nothing to do with procreation. But we're not talking about the recognition of marriage here. We are talking about marriage being legal. And, from a legal standpoint, if you are going to use procreation as an argument, you need to prove how procreation fits in with the legalization of marriage. Looking at marriage licensing paperwork would be the most logical place to look... but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

    So, give it another try. Prove that marriage legalization has anything to do with procreation. Some sort of substantiation is required.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  3. #973
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    You need to also stop having mods back you up with false infractions of baiting and locking me out of discussions,...while you make serial accusations of my being a liar and dishonest, ... unless of course you're incapable of honest discussion.
    Moderator's Warning:
    Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]Comments about moderation are NOT allowed to be made publicly. Please do not do this again.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  4. #974
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]Comments about moderation are NOT allowed to be made publicly. Please do not do this again.

    i'm not commenting about moderation. I'm comment about your reprehensible abuse of your position as a moderator, when you are not acting as a moderator,


    If you don't know the difference, that may partially explain your abuse.

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  5. #975
    Spectemur Agendo Trip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-01-14 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,920

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And yet I've done both... and both successfully. I suppose that means I'm just an amazing aberration.



    You keep making the claim that biology and the ability to procreate are integral parts to marriage. So I have challenged you to prove it... which you have refused to do. Let's see how you did, below.



    Nope. Didn't answer my question. The recognition of marriage has been explained to you, repeatedly. Nothing to do with procreation. But we're not talking about the recognition of marriage here. We are talking about marriage being legal. And, from a legal standpoint, if you are going to use procreation as an argument, you need to prove how procreation fits in with the legalization of marriage. Looking at marriage licensing paperwork would be the most logical place to look... but if you have a better idea, I'm all ears.

    So, give it another try. Prove that marriage legalization has anything to do with procreation. Some sort of substantiation is required.

    Silly, marriage is already legal! I dont know what you're talking about.

    Marriage is recognized in law, but that has nothing to do with "marriage legalization".

    Marriage was recognized by societies the world over to be a man and woman, because they populate those societies with offspring, and those societies have a vested interest in those man-woman unions being committed and stable, hence the recognition of marriage. Gay unions are not recognized by societies, and are not the equivalent of marriage, because they do not provide the same benefit to society. But then I've already indicated this, and you've never disproven any of it.

    And, See! No "requirement" or "legalization" anywhere in there!

    "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."

    ~ James Madison

  6. #976
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,711

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Trip View Post
    Silly, marriage is already legal! I dont know what you're talking about.
    Never said it wasn't.

    Marriage is recognized in law, but that has nothing to do with "marriage legalization".
    OK, since it is recognized by law, demonstrate where procreation comes in... since this is your reason for denying gays the legalization of marriage.

    Marriage was recognized by societies the world over to be a man and woman, because they populate those societies with offspring, and those societies have a vested interest in those man-woman unions being committed and stable, hence the recognition of marriage. Gay unions are not recognized by societies, and are not the equivalent of marriage, because they do not provide the same benefit to society. But then I've already indicated this, and you've never disproven any of it.

    And, See! No "requirement" or "legalization" anywhere in there!
    I've disproven all of it... repeatedly. The issue here is not the recognition of marriage, but marriage legalization. Marriage is legal. Since your position depends on biology and procreation, please show where biology or procreation has anything to do with the legality of marriage. Here's an example. In order for two people to get married, the both must demonstrate that they are over 18... or have their parents sign a permission paper. See? That's a legal issue in order to get married. Your position supposes that because gays cannot procreate between themselves, they should not be allowed to marry. Your task is to prove this by demonstrating where this is a part of the law.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  7. #977
    Lurker
    iangb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,927
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I've disproven all of it... repeatedly. The issue here is not the recognition of marriage, but marriage legalization. Marriage is legal. Since your position depends on biology and procreation, please show where biology or procreation has anything to do with the legality of marriage. Here's an example. In order for two people to get married, the both must demonstrate that they are over 18... or have their parents sign a permission paper. See? That's a legal issue in order to get married. Your position supposes that because gays cannot procreate between themselves, they should not be allowed to marry. Your task is to prove this by demonstrating where this is a part of the law.
    ...and also to demonstrate why

    a) Your 'procreation' argument does not apply to those who are infertile, especially those where this is obviously the case (for example, octogenarian women).
    b) A gay couple, while biologically infertile between each other, should be prevented from providing a parental benefit to society through use of a sperm donor, through adoption, or through providing extra for stepchildren from any prior straight relationships.
    The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head. ~Terry Pratchett

  8. #978
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Obviously you are predisposed to see evil where there is none.

    Creating a new term for SS committed monogamous civil union domestic partnerships is simply appropriate, as the use of a proper name to accurately describe something is a modern, civilized and intelligent thing to do.

    We've used the word "marriage" for 12,000 years to reference the OS committed monongamous civil union domestic partnerships between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    Since the word "marriage" does not apply for SS couples, a new word needs to be coined, as we simply don't have a word yet coined for their relationships, understandably.

    I suggested "homarriage", drawing the analogy between "man" and "woman" to apply here: "marriage" and "homarriage" -- quite applicable and descriptive.

    If you prefer another new term, then suggest it and justify its usage.

    That you suspect me of "belittling and demeaning" is simply ludicrous.

    I'm searching, as we centrists often do, for win-win scenarios, and win-win scenarios that rightly respect definitive propriety, as respecting definitive propriety creates progress whereas disrespecting definitive propriety causes regression, regression that most often ultimately gets corrected anyway and was nothing more than a waste of time against progress.

    That you see my efforts as "mean-spirited", in effect, .. well, perhaps I need to remind you that your entire position is one of being "I don't give a damn" uncaring about an entire class of people and their 12,000 year-old institution, just as long as you get what you want, you don't care who and how many people you have to, in effect, steal from in order to get it.

    All in all, it's best that the new term for SS relevant relationships be both employed and as accurate as possible.

    That the term I suggested includes the word "marriage" should be at least somewhat satisfying for you.
    Whatever your intention it is derogatory. Nobody assigned you the authority to name same sex relationships. Where do you think you get off coming up with a term like that and ascribing it to people without their consent? Do really feel that superior?

    Centrist? Don't make me laugh. Not even far right publications like WND make up derogatory terms for SSM, they just put marriage in quotes to designate they do not recognize it. Your language is insulting and tyrannical.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 06-27-13 at 08:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  9. #979
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Here is the poll you referenced:

    "Do you believe gays and lesbians should be allowed to get legally married, allowed a legal partnership similar to but not called marriage, or should there be no legal recognition given to gay and lesbian relationships?"

    .............................Legally married....legal partnership....No legal recognition....Unsure
    ....................................%............. .........%..........................%............. .......%
    5/13-15/12...................37......................33... ......................25.....................5
    8/10-11/10...................37......................29... ......................28.....................6
    5/12-13/09...................33......................33... ......................29.....................5
    11/4-5/06 LV................30......................30...... ...................32.....................7
    6/13-14/06...................27.....................25.... ......................39.....................8
    5/18-19/04...................25.....................26.... ......................40.....................9
    3/3-4/04......................20......................33 .........................40.....................7

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, unlike your claim, in fact more people prefer marriage to civil unions and by a significant margin. So you where wrong on that whole majority thing, and wrong that only a small minority prefer to call it marriage. In fact you posted results which show you to be 100 % completely wrong. You won't admit this, and will continue to make excuses why the things you image really are true, despite all the evidence saying otherwise. But that will not change the fact that you where wrong.
    Here you exhibit typical ideologue fantasizing.

    You present the poll question that validates precisely what I stated, that 63% oppose the word "marriage" applying to SS couples, and that if given a choice between "marriage" or "no recognition" 55-57% support "marriage" (as the general poll in the link stated) but if you allow state recognition without the word "marriage", "marriage" support drops to 37% and opposition to recognition also drops to 25%, meaning that then recognition support jumps from 55-57% to a whopping 70%! This clearly proves that SS activists' best chances for success in winning public support for state recognition in the remaining great majority of states -- where there are already state constitutional amendments stating that "marriage is only between a man and a woman as husband and wife" -- is to enact civil union domestic partnership statutes for SS couples and call them homarriage or the like.

    But then you just pretend that's not the obviously presented case!

    Instead you then you just deny the obvious realities with "Nuh uh, no it's not, it's not, it's not, it's not!!!" in true ideologue disconnect from reality fashion.

    So here's a reality check for you: only liberal run states are going to allow the ludicrous oxymoronic SS "marriage".

    The rest of the states are run by centrists and conservatives, together comprising the vast majority of Americans.

    These people aren't susceptible to the brainwashing of SS activists' employment of repetitive mantra oxymoronic chanting.

    And, that's reflected in this poll.

    Only big-city liberals support the oxymorons, and that demographic is essentially all used up now.

    Facing reality is really for the best, and, as the statistics show, that means facing the reality that the states with constitutional amendments banning SS "marriage", many requiring a two-thirds majority to change their constitution, well, it simply ain't gonna happen.

    I've tried to show you how "homarriage" opens the door to getting what you really and initially wanted: state recognition of SS relationships all across America.

    But you SS activists are so oppositionally defiant about stealing what from a foundational definitive propriety appeal simply does not belong to you that you uttterly fail to see the reasonableness of my recommendation.

    But, that's the legacy ideologues always leave: unresonable oppositional defiance and fantasy denial of obvious realities.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  10. #980
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Awaiting the Supreme Court's gay marriage decisions [W:641]

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    The one who is whining is you. Again, you have refused to source your ridiculous opinions, demonstrating that you do nothing but post dishonestly. So, let me ask you again... you claim that the majority of folks who support gay unions do NOT support these unions being called marriage. Prove it. Links are required. Let's see if you do what you always do... run away or divert from any challenge to prove your position. I have no need to discredit you personally or discredit what you post. You do both of those things each time you say anything. All I have to do is point out your errors which is quite easy since your posts are full of them. You ran... as you usually do when you are proven wrong. This is a demonstration of your lack of integrity. All you needed to do was either quote where I used the word "redefine" or when you couldn't (and since I didn't, you couldn't) admit that you were either wrong or had screwed up. But you don't have the integrity to do that. So instead you ran away from the challenge. Tell you what... I'll give you one more chance to show the community here that you do have some integrity and that you can actually debate a topic. Here is your claim: My challenge is for you to find where I stated that marriage was "redefined". Here is your claim: And here is your challenge... show where I have said that today's ruling is anything but a state's rights decision. Come on, Ontologuy. Show the community what an awesome debater you are. Show everyone how you are right and I am wrong. Will you accept the challenge? Or will you run away? I'll even give you a HINT... Post #842 was the first post I made towards you in this thread. You can start there. So, what's it going to be. Are you going to show everyone how good a debater you are, how you called me out on something and proved me wrong? Or are you going to find out that you were wrong... and either show some integrity and admit it or run away and dismiss it... showing the community that I don't have to do a thing to discredit you. You do all the work yourself. Nah... I'm just waiting to see if you'll accept any of my challenges and actually debate this issue... or if you will do exactly what we all know you will do.
    Different day, same old ODD/BPD postings from CC.

    If you'll read back to the beginning of your rants, you'll see that I never said you said it was anything other than a states' rights decision.

    In fact, it may be one of the few things we actually agree on in the matter.

    I merely emphasized that point .. and you apparently mistook it to mean you had said otherwise .. in typical oppostional defiant ideologue misconstruence.



    Again, giving it a rest may be your best move right now.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •