Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM[W:95]

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM - ABC News

Back-up Links:
NM Supreme Court Set to Hear Marriage Equality Case :: EDGE Boston
NM Judge Upholds County's Gay Marriage Ruling - ABC News (Older but still part of the story)

now it looks like 2 more states will be granting equal rights soon, thats 15 and that would bring the total to 3 or 5 this year depending on how you look at it> Some ruled on it before this year but it went into effect this year.

The dominoes are falling! that's like the 3rd or 4th gays rights victory or possible victory Ive been able to post in just as many days.

I wonder what states will be next?!
:2usflag:

Click to expand...

:roll:

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Verax said:

This is the final phase in "you people's" discrimination against gays. You can pretend "I'm all for them except" all you want but it won't change anything. Just let it go, its ok.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Just another continuation of the spurious argument that everyone who opposes gay marriage must be a bigot or be against "gay" people.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

Reported and yes, you are altering my posts. I'll ask you again to cease. If you wish to continue numbering your own, fine, but leave the posts of others alone.

Click to expand...

let me know when you can back up you failed claims, this deflection wont work ill will continue conducting myself as i already stated

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

davidtaylorjr said:

:roll:

Click to expand...

thats my favorite answer of yours, other have mentioned it too.
you got nothing relevant or factual but thanks for letting us know

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

let me know when you can back up you failed claims, this deflection wont work ill will continue conducting myself as i already stated

Click to expand...

I made no false claims (perhaps you have me confused with the others who disagree with your OPINION). And don't try to weasel out of what you've done, it's no distraction - stop altering the posts of others, period. Learn how to insert quotes if you wish to respond point by point.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

Nonsense. Just another continuation of the spurious argument that everyone who opposes gay marriage must be a bigot or be against "gay" people.

Click to expand...

you'll have to be more specific
i haven't seen anybody call somebody a bigot for simply thinking, believing, or preaching or teaching gay marriage is wrong or being gay is wrong. If they are out there they are wrong.

I personally would support your right to feel and think that way etc

but if people are activity trying to STOP equal rights, then yes they are bigots

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

1.)I made no false claims (perhaps you have me confused with the others who disagree with your OPINION).
2.) And don't try to weasel out of what you've done, it's no distraction - stop altering the posts of others, period.
3.) Learn how to insert quotes if you wish to respond point by point.

Click to expand...

1.) sorry thread history proves different and i have stated facts in this thread and some opinion.
2.) yes its a deflection that nobody buys into.
3.) takes to long and i think it makes the thread/reply look like junk and harder to respond too. No thank you.
I like this convenient and courteous method to assure a poster know exactly what im responding for and it creates less confusion.
If you do not sorry but the solution is easy, simply dont respond to me

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

you'll have to be more specific
i haven't seen anybody call somebody a bigot for simply thinking, believing, or preaching or teaching gay marriage is wrong or being gay is wrong. If they are out there they are wrong.

I personally would support your right to feel and think that way etc

but if people are activity trying to STOP equal rights, then yes they are bigots

Click to expand...

I quoted the post I was responding to, not difficult to find since you quoted my response to it. And once again, what YOU consider "equal rights" is not my standard for equal rights.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

1.) sorry thread history proves different and i have stated facts in this thread and some opinion.
2.) yes its a deflection that nobody buys into.
3.) takes to long and i think it makes the thread/reply look like junk and harder to respond too. No thank you.
I like this convenient and courteous method to assure a poster know exactly what im responding for and it creates less confusion.
If you do not sorry but the solution is easy, simply dont respond to me

Click to expand...

So, you can't point to any "false claims" I've made in the thread, AND you consider your opinions as elevated to fact. Got it. :roll:

The answer to your gross violation of forum etiquette is far simpler - stop doing it. It's is neither courteous nor is it appreciated.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

not only true its factual. we are talking legal marriage contract , rights and precedence here. There is none that has been established with equal gay rights that magically loans itself to polygamy.

anything polygamist would try would have nothing to do with equal gay rights, thats the point. If im missing something and you disagree point out the factual link that is solely based on equal rights for gays.

Click to expand...

You're attempting to be clever with the language by carefully framing the question in your own terms, however, the correct way to look at this is simple.

Marriage "rights" did not exist for homosexuals in America until just recently.
Marriage rights have always existed in America for men to marry women, and for women to marry men.
Multiple partner marriage rights do not exist in America, and until just recently marriage rights were reserved for one demographic only.
Allowing or extending marriage rights to any other group or demographic outside of the traditional reservation, opens up the potential for other groups to use the same argument that now extends rights to gays.

Slippery Slope argument is one where a single event (A) is directly related to another future event (B), whereby if that first event had not occurred the future event would also not occur.

In the case of gay marriage discrimination is the argument, and in that case the discrimination is based on gender (Which really is about sexuality). In the case of polygamists, the discrimination would be based on numbers, but discrimination is what is directly related to event (A) causing event (B).

Need more?

Tim-

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

Nonsense. Just another continuation of the spurious argument that everyone who opposes gay marriage must be a bigot or be against "gay" people.

Click to expand...

So you oppose it why? Principle? The constitution? Some silly reason you invented so you could legitimize your position? Its such a stupid thing to spend time fighting when its none of your business and has no negative consequences.

"I'm not against black people I just believe in separate but equal".

"I'm not against black people I just think a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone they choose".

We've heard this crap before. Whether or not your motivation is to discriminate it doesn't really matter, the positions you hold have that effect and its unjust.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Hicup said:

You're attempting to be clever with the language by carefully framing the question in your own terms, however, the correct way to look at this is simple.

Marriage "rights" did not exist for homosexuals in America until just recently.
Marriage rights have always existed in America for men to marry women, and for women to marry men.
Multiple partner marriage rights do not exist in America, and until just recently marriage rights were reserved for one demographic only.
Allowing or extending marriage rights to any other group or demographic outside of the traditional reservation, opens up the potential for other groups to use the same argument that now extends rights to gays.

Slippery Slope argument is one where a single event (A) is directly related to another future event (B), whereby if that first event had not occurred the future event would also not occur.

In the case of gay marriage discrimination is the argument, and in that case the discrimination is based on gender (Which really is about sexuality). In the case of polygamists, the discrimination would be based on numbers, but discrimination is what is directly related to event (A) causing event (B).

Need more?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Heya Hic!

The problem here is that the slippery slope arguement doesn't work as well with any other group other than having multiple partners.

It does not work for pedophilia because a child cannot consent due to lack of understanding, knowledge, and at least 17 years of experiance.

It also does not work with beastiality because again, no animal can consent. They simply lack the brain capacity to do so.

Necrophilia also does not work due to the simple fact that the being is dead.

Incest does not work due to several variables, one of which being able to, over time, being able to convince the other "partner" that "incest isn't bad. This is usually done starting at a very young age. Basically it is brainwashing. Which takes a persons free will away without them realizing it. Another reason is the genetic problems caused by incestual breeding. That can put a burden on society.

As far as polygamy/polyandry goes I have no problem with those being accepted as it involves consenting adults.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Kal'Stang said:

Heya Hic!

The problem here is that the slippery slope arguement doesn't work as well with any other group other than having multiple partners.

It does not work for pedophilia because a child cannot consent due to lack of understanding, knowledge, and at least 17 years of experiance.

It also does not work with beastiality because again, no animal can consent. They simply lack the brain capacity to do so.

Necrophilia also does not work due to the simple fact that the being is dead.

Incest does not work due to several variables, one of which being able to, over time, being able to convince the other "partner" that "incest isn't bad. This is usually done starting at a very young age. Basically it is brainwashing. Which takes a persons free will away without them realizing it. Another reason is the genetic problems caused by incestual breeding. That can put a burden on society.

As far as polygamy/polyandry goes I have no problem with those being accepted as it involves consenting adults.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but the slippery slope in the case of polygamy is not a fallacy which AGENTJ made claim to. It does apply, and it is not a fallacy.


Tim-

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

clownboy said:

1.)So, you can't point to any "false claims" I've made in the thread
2.) AND you consider your opinions as elevated to fact. Got it. :roll:
3.) The answer to your gross violation of forum etiquette is far simpler - stop doing it. It's is neither courteous nor is it appreciated.

Click to expand...

1.) already did
2.) nope not what i said at all
3.) you are welcome to that opinion i already gave you the solution if you are unhappy with this convenient and courteous method

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Hicup said:

1.)You're attempting to be clever with the language by carefully framing the question in your own terms, however, the correct way to look at this is simple.

2.)Marriage "rights" did not exist for homosexuals in America until just recently.
3.)Marriage rights have always existed in America for men to marry women, and for women to marry men.
4.) Multiple partner marriage rights do not exist in America
5.) and until just recently marriage rights were reserved for one demographic only.
6.) Allowing or extending marriage rights to any other group or demographic outside of the traditional reservation, opens up the potential for other groups to use the same argument that now extends rights to gays.
7.)Slippery Slope argument is one where a single event (A) is directly related to another future event (B), whereby if that first event had not occurred the future event would also not occur.
8.)in the case of gay marriage discrimination is the argument, and in that case the discrimination is based on gender (Which really is about sexuality).
9.) In the case of polygamists, the discrimination would be based on numbers, but discrimination is what is directly related to event (A) causing event (B).
10.)Need more?

Tim-

Click to expand...

1.) its not MY anything sorry this is false
2.) marriage is a right PERIOD, gays haven been DENIED that right
3.) yes
4.) true although not sure of its totaly history here
5.) what demographic are you referring, im dont know this to be true for any ONE demographic
6.) you men granting equal rights to gays, this is where you instantly fail, because its you who is changing the langues to suit your false argument. this one is based on equality and ending discrimination the others are currently not.
If you disagree bring up the example and ill show you why its false.

not if you read the thread i said if there are laws out there that ban a specific group then that group would have some power but it would have nothing to do with gay marriage

theres nothing SOLEY gay marriage does for OTHER groups in facts, reality, rights, precedence and discrimination. NOTHING. as always if you disagree bring up what you think an example is and it will fail.
7.) i agree for the most part although it needs to be a little cleaner than that but yes and thats exactly why gay marriage isnt a slippery slope argument and it fails.
8.) the argument has been TWO things

A.) banning specifically against homosexuality, this has been found to violate equality
B.) the other which has not his a supreme court is gender discrimination. Men can merry women so should a women be able to and vice versa

those are the two arguments and only A has been in a supreme court and it won.

9.) they could make this argument and it would relate to GAYS in anyway what so ever because NOBODY can merry more than one person. so the equality argument fails UNLESS there are laws somewhere that say pologamist cant merry then they could use discrimination for that and it would still have NOTHING to do with gay marriage.

also polygamist have been trying to gain marriage rights before gays won case one.

10.) yes because you havent provided on single factual slipper slope argument, they failed.

so yes please MORE that are based SOLELY off of gay marriage, thanks for playing

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Kal'Stang said:

Heya Hic!

The problem here is that the slippery slope arguement doesn't work as well with any other group other than having multiple partners.

It does not work for pedophilia because a child cannot consent due to lack of understanding, knowledge, and at least 17 years of experiance.

It also does not work with beastiality because again, no animal can consent. They simply lack the brain capacity to do so.

Necrophilia also does not work due to the simple fact that the being is dead.

Incest does not work due to several variables, one of which being able to, over time, being able to convince the other "partner" that "incest isn't bad. This is usually done starting at a very young age. Basically it is brainwashing. Which takes a persons free will away without them realizing it. Another reason is the genetic problems caused by incestual breeding. That can put a burden on society.

As far as polygamy/polyandry goes I have no problem with those being accepted as it involves consenting adults.

Click to expand...

dont use facts they just get ignored and talked over

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Hicup said:

Agreed, but the slippery slope in the case of polygamy is not a fallacy which AGENTJ made claim to. It does apply, and it is not a fallacy.


Tim-

Click to expand...

nope already proved to be a fallacy when one honestly looks at the facts, law, cases and precedence set

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM - ABC News

Back-up Links:
NM Supreme Court Set to Hear Marriage Equality Case :: EDGE Boston
NM Judge Upholds County's Gay Marriage Ruling - ABC News (Older but still part of the story)

now it looks like 2 more states will be granting equal rights soon, thats 15 and that would bring the total to 3 or 5 this year depending on how you look at it> Some ruled on it before this year but it went into effect this year.

The dominoes are falling! that's like the 3rd or 4th gays rights victory or possible victory Ive been able to post in just as many days.

I wonder what states will be next?!
:2usflag:

Click to expand...

My state already has legalized it so all's right in my world

I don't see why it's a scary notion for some people, as long as religions aren't forced to recognize it then fine. I see nothing wrong with gay marriage and a lot of potential good that can come from it.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Monserrat said:

My state already has legalized it so all's right in my world

I don't see why it's a scary notion for some people, as long as religions aren't forced to recognize it then fine. I see nothing wrong with gay marriage and a lot of potential good that can come from it.

Click to expand...

while i agree with you about churches being forced to marry when people bring that up, not say you, im talking about anti-gay people. I always laugh because its nothing more than a fear tactic

1.) the constitution isnt changing to force that, just isnt gonna happen
2.) if people are afraid about the churches being forced to marry people this has nothing to do with "the gays" Churches already dont marry STRAIGHT couples or INTERRACIAL couples or MINORITY couples or couplse not religious enough right now. ANd that is their right. And im fine with CHURCHES being allowed to discriminate.

but the fact is a person could try to sue a church now without equal gay rights but they would fail majorly.

sorry just a small rant

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Moderator's Warning:

There has been some derailment over posting styles. Please drop it and return to the topic.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

nope already proved to be a fallacy when one honestly looks at the facts, law, cases and precedence set

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Polygamy was once legal in some of the United States, and is no longer legal. That is a fact, and supported by case law. Do you deny this?

Fact: Only in a few states is SSM legal now, but only recently has that been the case. Previously, and still in most United States, gay marriage is illegal, do you deny this?

Fact: Gay marriage has been made legal in a few states, and the basis for making SSM legal was due to a claim that gay people were being discriminated against. Why they were being discriminated against is not nearly as important as the discrimination itself.

Fact: Polygamists are being discriminated against.

Fact: Polygamists, as with gay people are of legal consenting age. They are both consisting of legal aged men and women that, as a matter of their identity and existence, are in most states denied the rights to marriage afforded to heterosexual couples, or more accurately, consenting men and women wishing to marry only each other.

Fact: Gays are now being permitted to marry each other in certain states, the discrimination is no longer a bar to their happiness.

Fact: Polygamists are not allowed to marry each other, they are still being discriminated against, and are being barred from their happiness.

Fact: The central arguments for SSM are discrimination based on gender, and or sexuality.

Fact: Gays argue that allowing their rights to marry each other harms no one; that their right to pursue their happiness was being impeded with no compelling argument from the state in which to do so.

Opinion: I see no material difference between the arguments presented by the gays, and those presented by polygamists.

Fact: Allowing polygamists to marry each other harms no one.

Fact: Allowing polygamists to marry each other would make them happy.

Fact: There is no compelling argument from the state that should bar polygamists from pursuing their rights to marry each other.

Opinion: Until gays successfully changed the opinion of certain courts and to some extent the people's will in some states, polygamy would never have had an avenue to pursue change itself. With this event (A), Polygamists now have the same opportunity to argue in the exact same manner that gays did, possibly leading to event (B).

Opinion: We say possibly, but in reality the chances of polygamists all over the country using the same tactics and strategy gays have is more likely than unlikely at this point.

FACT: THAT is the very definition of a slippery slope unfolding right before your very eyes!

Care to dispute any of the above?

Tim-

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Hicup said:

1.)What are you talking about? Polygamy was once legal in some of the United States, and is no longer legal. That is a fact, and supported by case law. Do you deny this?

2.) Fact: Only in a few states is SSM legal now, but only recently has that been the case. Previously, and still in most United States, gay marriage is illegal, do you deny this?
3.) Fact: Gay marriage has been made legal in a few states, and the basis for making SSM legal was due to a claim that gay people were being discriminated against. Why they were being discriminated against is not nearly as important as the discrimination itself.
4.) Fact: Polygamists are being discriminated against.
5.) Fact: Polygamists, as with gay people are of legal consenting age. They are both consisting of legal aged men and women that, as a matter of their identity and existence, are in most states denied the rights to marriage afforded to heterosexual couples, or more accurately, consenting men and women wishing to marry only each other.
6.)Fact: Gays are now being permitted to marry each other in certain states, the discrimination is no longer a bar to their happiness.
7.) Fact: Polygamists are not allowed to marry each other, they are still being discriminated against, and are being barred from their happiness.
8.) Fact: The central arguments for SSM are discrimination based on gender, and or sexuality.
9.) Fact: Gays argue that allowing their rights to marry each other harms no one; that their right to pursue their happiness was being impeded with no compelling argument from the state in which to do so.
10.)Opinion: I see no material difference between the arguments presented by the gays, and those presented by polygamists.
11.) Fact: Allowing polygamists to marry each other harms no one.
12.) Fact: Allowing polygamists to marry each other would make them happy.
13.) Fact: There is no compelling argument from the state that should bar polygamists from pursuing their rights to marry each other.
14.) Opinion: Until gays successfully changed the opinion of certain courts and to some extent the people's will in some states, polygamy would never have had an avenue to pursue change itself. With this event (A), Polygamists now have the same opportunity to argue in the exact same manner that gays did, possibly leading to event (B).
15.) Opinion: We say possibly, but in reality the chances of polygamists all over the country using the same tactics and strategy gays have is more likely than unlikely at this point.
16.) FACT: THAT is the very definition of a slippery slope unfolding right before your very eyes!
17.) Care to dispute any of the above?

Tim-

Click to expand...

1.) no, weird can you point out where i denied this? thats right i didnt and its meaningless to the topic of slipper slope using only gay marriage precedence
2.) no, weird can you point out where i denied this? thats right i didnt and its meaningless to the topic of slipper slope using only gay marriage precedence
3.) FALSE, its VERY important because thats the ONLY FACTUAL way to use a slipper slope argument. if not i could say freeing the slaves was the gate way to gay marrige because of discrimination thats all that matters. sorry thats NOT a slipper slope.
4.) false, legally they are not unless there is a constitution/law out there that specifically says polygamist are not allowed to marry THEN they would be discriminated against and that would have NOTHING to do with gay marriage
5.) FALSE. again see #4
6.) gays are now being granted EQUAL rights
7.) legally they have equal rights NOBODY is allowed to have a marriage contract with multiple partners
8.) discrimination based on EQUAL rights and gender
9.) this is only an argument when bigots try to say its not about equal rights and its evil and damaging to society which all educated people laugh at that lie
10,) of course you dont but LAW, FACTS and PRECEDENCE do and it makes your opinion false
11.) weird can you point out where i denied this? thats right i didnt and its meaningless to the topic of slipper slope using only gay marriage precedence but i agree if its consenting adults
12.) weird can you point out where i denied this? thats right i didnt and its meaningless to the topic of slipper slope using only gay marriage precedence but i agree if its consenting adults
13.) not a fact, i dont have one, i support them fighting for this NEW right but its not a fact
14.) 100% false and idiotic. It has nothgin to do with equal rights for gays theres no logic or fact to support this
15.) false because it wont be the SAME it will be its own thing
16.) no its not because all your examples failed they are made up and facts destroy them, say simply the word discrimination is the slipper slope would make everything in the world a slipper slope. SOrry facts deafeat you again
17.) yes i do and i did

you post failed again because NOTHING you mentioned is a slipper slope from equal rights of gays to polygamy. NOTHING.

again let me know when you have ANY fact, laws and precedence to back up your failed claims and please try to focus on those words because BS and opinion is not facts law and precedence.
WOw that was easy as could be, still laughing at any argument for discrimination is the slipper slope, did you really think anybody honest and objective would buy that BS

thanks for playing

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Hicup said:

FACT: THAT is the very definition of a slippery slope unfolding right before your very eyes!

Care to dispute any of the above?

Tim-

Click to expand...

Actually it is generally understood that when a slippery slope happens the subject at hand goes from bad to worse. What is bad with polygamists marrying?

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

Kal'Stang said:

Actually it is generally understood that when a slippery slope happens the subject at hand goes from bad to worse. What is bad with polygamists marrying?

Click to expand...

yeah i agree there is a negative connotation with the fallacy, just like the word cult. All religions are in fact cults but some people get offended or defensive because of the negative connotation.

but in this case there isnt even a slippery slope that directly/solely connects with equal rights for Gays

anything polygamist fight for could be done if gays never existed so the slippery slope argument is a failure and a lie.

Re: Gay Marriage Stirs Little Public Outcry in NM

AGENT J said:

yeah i agree there is a negative connotation with the fallacy, just like the word cult. All religions are in fact cults but some people get offended or defensive because of the negative connotation.

but in this case there isnt even a slipper slope that directly/solely connects with equal rights for Gays

anything polygamist fight for could be done if gays never existed so the slipper slop argument is a failure and a lie.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.