View Poll Results: Should civil unions replace marriage for legal purposes?

Voters
66. You may not vote on this poll
  • The term civil union should replace the term marriage for legal purposes

    15 22.73%
  • Both terms, civil union (for gay couples)and marriage (for straight), should be used

    25 37.88%
  • The term marriage should be use equally for gay and straight couples

    21 31.82%
  • Gay couples should not be able to have the rights of marriage at all.

    5 7.58%
Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 345

Thread: Civil Unions

  1. #231
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    both analogies are idiotic and false.

    when you include words like "not one" "anyone" "whomever"--kind of like "never" and "always"--you are not dealing with the general anymore. you are dealing in absolutes. I warned you not to make sweeping generalizations. they are seldom, if ever, valid. and yet rather than modifying your sweeping generalization, you challenged me to disprove it and then accused me of taking it out of context. a sweeping generalization, once disproved in any context, is no longer a legitimate argument--leaving you, as I said before, nonplussed.

    I think it bothers you that I'm rational. admittedly, it's much easier to deal with raving bigots. kudos for bearing with me.

    Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

    An absolute? What are you... twelve?

    I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.

    I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.

    You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.

    Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.

    I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  2. #232
    Advisor DGomez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-20-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    380

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

    An absolute? What are you... twelve?

    I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.

    I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.

    You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.

    Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.

    I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
    Perhaps clearing up some of the extraneous writing will help resolve this little issue.

    Bodhisattva said: "All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want."

    As a response emdash said: "allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent."

    Your use of the word "any", Bodhisattva, implies that you view there are no exceptions to your statement. Emdash gave you an exception thus making your statement invalid. In order to maintain your stance, you must narrow down what you mean. Otherwise, we have only to assume that you're ok with sibling incest.

  3. #233
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
    Perhaps clearing up some of the extraneous writing will help resolve this little issue.

    Bodhisattva said: "All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want."

    As a response emdash said: "allowing marriage between siblings is a dangerous medical precedent."

    Your use of the word "any", Bodhisattva, implies that you view there are no exceptions to your statement. Emdash gave you an exception thus making your statement invalid. In order to maintain your stance, you must narrow down what you mean. Otherwise, we have only to assume that you're ok with sibling incest.
    Holy ****ing ****. No duh. Not to be disrespectful to you, but jesus.

    Of course I said any, and the context that I am using it, since it should already be obvious, is ANY PERSON THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MIARRAGE OTHER THEN SEXUAL PREFERENCE OR ORIENTATION.

    Those reasons are against the law.
    The thread is about this very subject.

    This thread is not about incest as a reason to keep people apart.

    If we were in a random thread and I made some random comment, emdashs point would be valid.
    That is why we have this forum with its sections and particular threads...
    They help narrow the discussions so that we don't have to freaking qualify every statement with all of the exceptions.

    This is not the abortion section, or the war on terror section.
    This is a poll section and this thread is specifically labeled.

    Could not using an absolute have been more clear? Perhaps...
    I generally try and avoid absolutes, in fact, I hardly use them for this very reason.

    But within the context of how I was using it, hoping that others were clever enough to pick up that my comment is in context with the appropriated
    thread, then it is clear enough as it stands. I am not interested in clarifying
    an already simple statement in a debate... that is a waste of time.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  4. #234
    Advisor DGomez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Seen
    09-20-11 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    380

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    and the context that I am using it, since it should already be obvious
    It was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    is ANY PERSON THAT MEETS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MIARRAGE OTHER THEN SEXUAL PREFERENCE OR ORIENTATION.
    Thank you for clarifying. Please be more precise in the future. It will help to avoid misunderstandings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Those reasons are against the law.
    So is gay marriage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    The thread is about this very subject.
    Which is the legalization. Gay marriage is not the precedent. Your argument is for it to BECOME the precedent. Which leads to the question of why gay marriage should be legalized and other forms of coupling shouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    This thread is not about incest as a reason to keep people apart.
    But incest is another type of couple that is ALSO illegal. So you must present an argument on why gay marriage should be the only thing picked out of the bin of illegal marriages.

  5. #235
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Nothing about what you are doing "bothers" me. Don't flatter yourself silly one. What you are is obtuse, not rational. Rational would be to understand what is traspiring and keep it within the proper context.

    An absolute? What are you... twelve?
    is that the best you can do? turning the other cheek has never been so easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I admitted such... who comes to such moronic debates about an errant absolute or not including something that is illegal such as incest? I don't care that you point out a misuse of an absolute, especially when your analogy against it is so ****ing stupid as to talk about an illegality like incest.
    when you base your argument on "errant absolutes" that leaves the opposition with nothing to work with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I used an absolute, and within the context that I used it, it is correct. All things being equal and legal, there is no reason that any person should not be able to marry whom they want. Any. It is an absolute and you could next argue that a person in a coma can't marry since they are not cognizant. That is correct and that is fine. But it is out of context since a person in a coma, that is not cognizant, is not allowed to marry just like two first cousins or brother sister are not allowed to marry. That is why, after I said that, I said that you are taking it purposely out of context in order to make a point about absolutes, instead of creating a logical and rational argument that is on topic.
    I already made rational arguments in that really long thread that got closed. I thought we had made some progress, but then I've always been an incurable optimist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    You are trolling about absolutes, about something that is so elementary that it is beyond stupid to nit-pick about. It is like a stupid grammar-Nazi that won't debate the issue because they are debating spelling. We are talking about the sky being clear and you are pointing out that there is a cloud on the horizon. You are a ravingly obtuse... that much is certain.
    I could just as easily say that making a blanket statement and then getting mad when it is refuted is so elementary that it is beyond stupid, but I would never be so rude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Now that you have not even presented a case, it is astounding that you think that you demolished anything. You offered some juvenile tactic about an absolute rather than trying to communicate and clear up misunderstandings. Your a troll. Not even a clever one.
    the point, bodhisattva, is that sweeping generalizations are useless wastes of time, and no more welcome in an intelligent debate than a grammar nazi.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    I am done explaining this obvious stuff to you. If you are too stupid to get it, or Troll enough to keep arguing, then that is one you. Until you present a case, any case, regarding not allowing homosexuals the right to marry, then you will be ignored for the boring and obtuse Troll that you are.
    never attack in anger. would you like a rain check?

  6. #236
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by DGomez View Post
    It was not.
    To the two of you...


    Thank you for clarifying.
    No problem... though it was already clear.


    Please be more precise in the future. It will help to avoid misunderstandings.
    If you want to be heard, then I suggest that you don't give advice in the manner in which you are.
    You are not my teacher or parent, and I have been an adult for quite some time.

    So is gay marriage.
    This thread is about gay marriage/civil unions and not incest...
    If that is not already understood, then I am not sure that I can help you, or emdash.


    Which is the legalization. Gay marriage is not the precedent. Your argument is for it to BECOME the precedent. Which leads to the question of why gay marriage should be legalized and other forms of coupling shouldn't.
    Why should gay marriage be legal and incest not? Are you kidding me?
    If you want to argue why gay marriage should be allowed and, since incest is also illegal, incest too...
    Then go ahead an make a point regarding such. It is tremedously dumb, but go ahead.

    If you want to make an argument that incest is analogous to incest, and thus both should remain illegal,
    Then I would ask you to make a case.

    Regarding your question, why should gay marriage be legal and incest should not,
    Well, common sense tells us that two non-related men marrying is vastly different than a brother and sister marrying.

    Actually a man marrying a non-related women is more analogous to a brother
    marrying a sister than is two non-related, or related men, marrying each other.


    But incest is another type of couple that is ALSO illegal. So you must present an argument on why gay marriage should be the only thing picked out of the bin of illegal marriages.
    I don't need to present any such argument. That is ridiculous.
    All I need to do is show that it is just as logical to allow homosexual marriage
    As it is to allow heterosexual marriages, and I have done this alread. What I
    am facing now has nothing to do with the issue. Your dual arguments are not in any way logically related to allowing gay marriage, or of denying it either.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  7. #237
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    is that the best you can do? turning the other cheek has never been so easy.



    when you base your argument on "errant absolutes" that leaves the opposition with nothing to work with.



    I already made rational arguments in that really long thread that got closed. I thought we had made some progress, but then I've always been an incurable optimist.



    I could just as easily say that making a blanket statement and then getting mad when it is refuted is so elementary that it is beyond stupid, but I would never be so rude.



    the point, bodhisattva, is that sweeping generalizations are useless wastes of time, and no more welcome in an intelligent debate than a grammar nazi.



    never attack in anger. would you like a rain check?
    Anger? Okee dokee...

    No semblance of an argument... noted. Try again.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

  8. #238
    Old Soul

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    ND
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 09:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,915

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    Anger? Okee dokee...

    No semblance of an argument... noted. Try again.
    at least I didn't post a crappy one that got shot down by an obtuse troll.

    I've already given you my argument in detail over 30 pages of a thread, less than a month ago. as far as I'm concerned I have yet to see you refute it. your persistence in ignoring it, however? noted.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Tiamat's better half
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 11:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    15,998

    Re: Civil Unions

    Moderator's Warning:
    Civil UnionsDon't be a jerk.

  10. #240
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,639

    Re: Civil Unions

    Quote Originally Posted by emdash View Post
    at least I didn't post a crappy one that got shot down by an obtuse troll.

    I've already given you my argument in detail over 30 pages of a thread, less than a month ago. as far as I'm concerned I have yet to see you refute it. your persistence in ignoring it, however? noted.
    You didn't shoot down anything... it appears that we can add delusional to your resume.

    Why don't you link that part, since I don't remember where it is and I didn't find it after searching twenty pages of this 24 page thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... 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
  •