Page 20 of 43 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #191
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,752

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You make several mistakes. There are reasons to include marriage of gays but not polygamy. They have been stated. You can ignore them, but that does not make them go away.

    No one is claiming that is some new standard. We are stating that is the reason why the government has any argument to be involved in marriage.

    The number of countries that allow same sex marriage is not an argument that it is beneficial, and is not being claimed as such.
    Actually, I have to disagree with you here. Who says polygamy must be illegal?. As with homosexuality, how people conduct their personal lives is none of the government's business. As long as they are not trampling the rights of others, the government should just keep it's nose out of where it does not belong.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #192
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, I have to disagree with you here. Who says polygamy must be illegal?. As with homosexuality, how people conduct their personal lives is none of the government's business. As long as they are not trampling the rights of others, the government should just keep it's nose out of where it does not belong.
    He's saying there's no particular reason that legalizing same-sex marriage means you MUST legalize polygamy. They're different situations with different arguments to be made.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #193
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,824

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by texmaster View Post
    This is the only honest argument on gay marriage. Open to all alternative lifestyles. The only place I disagree with you is the claim of showing "demonstrable harm" That would be extremely hard to prove without taking a moral stance.
    Maybe that says something about the situation.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitum
    Quote Originally Posted by redress
    Quote Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

    ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.

    First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?

    How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?
    (FLAME>>> } Ok, slowing this down for you: when you have to change the subject and appeal to emotion by bringing in something unrelated, it is a sign you are losing.
    I see... So you feel that specifically speaking to the issue at hand, stating in specific and plain terms, the elements of the issue, outlining each in stark detail; you feel that this is an attempt to change the subject?

    Basically, you are helpless to discuss the issue... and as a result of your inability to muster the discipline to refrain from commenting upon an issue in which you're clearily ill-equipped to speak, you felt that the best ya could do was to trot out a series of specious cliches; which have no record of working in verbal exchanges; and less where the discussion is executed through written discourse...

    ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

    Changing the subject from gay marriage to polygamy is not specifically speaking to the issues at hand. In point of fact, it's an effort to evade the issue at hand, since you cannot argue against it. It's not my fault you are helpless to discuss the issue and are clearly ill-equipped to discuss.
    Interesting... so the tactic is to simply ignore the argument and restate your refuted point... Now last time I checked, reposting refuted argument, serves no other purpose than to troll the debate in hopes of emflaming the discussion.

    Or would you care to demonstrate for the board, the precise element of your most recent statement, the specific element of the argument to which you were responding? Now FTR: simply citing and quoting a statement, does not in and of itself qualify the response as engaging the argument.

    Making a comparison for the purposes of demonstrating that a given policy would lead to further decadence of the relevant standard, BY DEFAULT speaks SPECIFICALLY TO THE RELEVANT ISSUE!

    The issue here is the desire on the part of homosexuals to secure the legitimacy which THEY FEEL, only 'marriage' can provide... Noting the standard of marriage provides for TWO INDIVIDUALS, REPRESENTING EACH OF THE DISTINCT GENDERS and that where those who come to demand that they should be allowed to lower the marriage standard because they desire to enter into marriage with a person of the same gender must inevitably require that those who desire to enter into marriage with MORE THAN THE STANDARD TWO INDIVIDUALS is NOT A CHANGING OF THE SUBJECT...

    PERIOD!

    Given that this fatally flawed element of your argument rests at the foundation of your entire argument, the balance of your response is dismissed without further consideration.

    But, as failed reasoning goes... this is a

    SWEET FAIL!
    Last edited by PubliusInfinitu; 07-10-10 at 07:42 PM.

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 10:05 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    143

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The only pundits I can find saying it will be overturned are far right pundits. Got any rational analysis of the ruling that say it will be overturned?
    Again we find the Progressive appealing to popularity... She makes no attempt to engage the argument of ANY pundit, but instead simply demands through implication that the pundits are of the mythical 'far-right'; and that solely because of that ethereal conclusion, their analysis is invalid.

    Now understand friends the tactic at play here... Let's take a look at the same statement and simply change the label of those she laments:

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    The only pundits I can find saying it will be overturned are JEWISH pundits. Got any rational analysis of the ruling that say it will be overturned?
    Now rest assured that I am not implying that the member is anti-semitic... I am simply pointing out that the species of reasoning is precisely the same... Rancid ad populum...

    Had the member come to quote the relevant argument of the respective pundits, advancing a logically valid, intellectually sound rebuttal of their stated perspectives, then their ideology, their religion of their favorite color, would all be IRRELEVANT... and quite by default. But that's not what she did... is it?

  6. #196
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, I have to disagree with you here. Who says polygamy must be illegal?. As with homosexuality, how people conduct their personal lives is none of the government's business. As long as they are not trampling the rights of others, the government should just keep it's nose out of where it does not belong.
    I am not saying it should be illegal. I am saying it is not the same thing as gay marriage, and the reasons to support gay marriage do not necessarily include polygamy.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #197
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:02 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    Again we find the Progressive appealing to popularity... She makes no attempt to engage the argument of ANY pundit, but instead simply demands through implication that the pundits are of the mythical 'far-right'; and that solely because of that ethereal conclusion, their analysis is invalid.

    Now understand friends the tactic at play here... Let's take a look at the same statement and simply change the label of those she laments:



    Now rest assured that I am not implying that the member is anti-semitic... I am simply pointing out that the species of reasoning is precisely the same... Rancid ad populum...

    Had the member come to quote the relevant argument of the respective pundits, advancing a logically valid, intellectually sound rebuttal of their stated perspectives, then their ideology, their religion of their favorite color, would all be IRRELEVANT... and quite by default. But that's not what she did... is it?
    I was replying to a post that, surprise, talked about pundits saying this would be overturned. I asked for more information. You then took that out of context and tried to make it something it is clearly not. It is hilarious that you try and hold me to a standard that you did not some one who agrees with you.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #198
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    I think what people are saying in regards to the polygamy thing is that the arguments that justify homosexual marriage would also justify polygamy. I agree that it bringing polygamy into things is a red herring and serves no purpose in regards to the gay marriage debate.

    And PubliusInfinitu: I understand that you are new here and I would like to add some advice. Please stop with the massive red text. This isn't an online shouting (via typing) match, and being the boldest doesn't make someone correct. I am anti gay marriage as well, but posting with big red letters and saying "typical progressive/leftist" really isn't going to do much good in advancing our position.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  9. #199
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by PubliusInfinitu View Post
    ROFLMNAO! Sweet Mother whatta trainwreck.
    I would agree. Your post is a complete trainwreck. It is obvious that you have either no or limited knowledge on this issue. Here. Let me help educate you.
    First: how does noting that Polygamy falls outside the established standard of marriage and accurately comparing that joining of more than two individuals is synonymous with the standard violating joining of two outies... or two inies... become 'a sure sign of losing'?

    How does that work? Any chance you can show us your math on that one?
    It's called a red herring logical fallacy. There. Now you've learned something. Here. Let me see if I can teach you some more.



    Second: No one has argued that Polygamy is identical to the sexual deviancy of homosexuality...
    Aw... isn't that cute. You used the word deviancy. Let's see how smart you are. Prove that homosexuality is deviant. Now, remember, in order to do that, you are going to have to accurately define the word deviant. Get your dictionary out.

    Third: Who has suggested that Polygamy is a sexual orientation?
    Excellent. You just helped prove me right. Since it is not, it is a red herring to the issue and is not comparable. You are really good at helping me win debates.

    Fourth: Polygamists would vehemently dispute your assertion that their 'lifestyle choice' is not beneficial... And they believe it every BIT as much as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals of their own gender; just as the pathetic sexual deviants who chose to seek sexual gratification through intercourse with individuals which have yet to grow to the age of consent, OKA: Pedophiles, VEHEMENTLY BELIEVE THAT THEIR PARTICULAR KINK is beneficial.
    If there are no studies that show it, then it doesn't exist. I have plenty of studies that show the benefits of GM. Let's see you prove the benefits of plural marriage. Evidence and links are the only things that will suffice.

    There, now I have given you a lesson on evidence. Let's see if you can handle it.

    Fifth: how does a deviant, abnormal sexual orientation become acceptable as a means to violate the established, reasonable, well founded marriage standard that marriage consist of two individuals, each representing the distinct genders; and Polygamy does not?
    More definitions. Please define abnormal. See, when you debate, it is always important to define your terms, accurately. I suspect that you do not know what these terms mean, so your task is to educate yourself on their actual meaning., Link to the dictionary definitions.

    Oh, and remember: reasonable, established, and standard is meaningless in debate as it is an appeal to antiquity logical fallacy. There. More education.

    Sixth: There is no correlation between the popularity of a given idea and the validity of that idea... relevant to your implications regarding 'widespread support'... Meaning that just because an idea becomes widely supported, does not make it logically valid, or intellectually sound; let alone something approaching a good idea.
    An actual relevant point! Your first! What you say may be true, however, when it comes to societal changes, if there is no support for that change, then the change will not happen. That's how voting affects things in this country.

    So, though your point was relevant, it was easily negated.


    Seventh: Homosexuals violate the marriage standard regarding distinct genders and polygamist violate the stated acceptable volume of individuals.
    Which has nothing to do with my argument. Another red herring logical fallacy. If you'd like, I can link you to a site that identifies all logical fallacies so you can stop committing them.

    In truth, your would-be argument is little more than raw dissemblance... which never serves any purpose except to distract from the truth; thus you're the one advancing a distraction.
    Actually, your pathetic post has been so easy to disassemble, that it is obvious that you know so little about this topic that all you have is logical fallacies, in accurate definitions, and distractions in your arsenal.

    So, let's see those definitions and links to studies showing polygamy is beneficial.

    At the end of the day, where the advocates of normalizing abnormality prevail in destroying the marriage standard, the notion that they will be able to defend the newly lowered standard from the claims by others of different abnormalities, that they should be provided the same benefit of Marriage and included within the standard; and the same specious reasoning that crippled the standard allowing the homosexual will be used to allow the polygamist.
    More inaccurate definitions and an appeal to antiquity logical fallacy. It is sad to see that this is all you have. I was hoping for some competition.

    The bottom line is that Homosexuals can readily find the financial benefits which they claim to rest at the foundation of theid discontent, by simply filing to incorporate and lobbying congress to add legislation to include a specific Corporation for domestic unions of the common fag. There's no moral component to it, and there's no limit to the number of people who can participate in these legal entities designed to jojn multiple distinct parties into one legal entity. But the advocates of normalizing abnormality are not truly interested in the tax benefits intrinsic to marriage... THEY CRAVE THE LEGITIMACY INHERENT I MARRIAGE.

    Legitimacy, that will evaporate, the instant that the institution is crippled by allowing them to participate.
    So, let's see those definitions and links to studies showing polygamy is beneficial. Until you do that, as I said, your post... and position is nothing but a trainwreck.
    "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"

  10. #200
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,725

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    And how exactly is GM beneficial?


    j-mac
    As has been said, in the exact same ways as heterosexual marriage is beneficial. It promotes the positive rearing of children, the health of the individual, the stability of the family, all of which promotes a more stable and healthier society.
    "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"

Page 20 of 43 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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