South Africa's high court approves gay marriage - Page 8

Clodfobble · 11-30-2006, 11:29 AM

I've often seen a distinction being made nowadays, at least in written form, between "gay" (homosexual) and "ghey" (teh suxxors).

11-30-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

There are lots of married people on this site who're conservative or liberal, and I doubt any of them considered it an 'extra' right to marry the one they love instead of someone who might have been more 'suitable' for whatever reason there could be.

Sometimes its extra wrong!:p

9th... please do not call yourself a Libertarian.
The LAST thing we do is worry about what others are doing. You have issues with others who have sex with others of the same sex and want to deny them security for your own reasons. Fine, deal with it.
However, that concept is as far from the idea of Libertarianism as any concept can get.

9th Engineer · 11-30-2006, 11:53 AM

Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).
Lovely little rant about my being unAmerican there tw, so now you think you are right because you label your opponet as freedom hating and unAmerican? Readers would do well to remember how fast he was to resort to smear tactics and challenges of Americanism once responded to. His other key blunder is that his entire post is hinged on his statement that he is right.

Quote:

It only says, "I was wrong but my principles will not allow me to ever be right." With Rumsfeld, that was a prescription to justify mass murder.

Lets look beyond the fact that you are equating my viewpoint with mass-murder here for a second. I said that my principles will not allow me to agree with you, you make the leap to saying that they will always keep me in the wrong. You say two things boldly up front here, neither of which are true 1) You admit you are wrong - Really? Where do I say that? I am no more convinced of any error on my part than when we started. 2) Since I disagree with you I can never be right - Wow, ladies and gentlemen I give you the great debating prowess of tw! I stand in awe, but not of your capacity for argument.

Quote:

Principle is also characteristic of one who believes he is the new messiah. Does that personal (religous) belief justify hate of gay marriage.
...
So do you really believe you are the new messiah?

I'm going to keep this one, you are actually accusing me of proclaiming myself as a relieous messiah??

I'm touched

Quote:

America's greatest secret for success is about change, innovation, and therefore the advancement of mankind. An engineer would never be so anti-American. And yet that is 9th's stated principles.

Ah yes, I disagree with a change you like and that means that I am standing in the way of progress. Has anyone ever challenged your notion that your viewpoint constitutes the advancement of mankind? Perhaps you need a little more varience in the opinions of those around you. And you shouldn't be supprised that it's an engineer taking you up on this, we're trained to think things through to every outcome and not to become blinded to an ideology.

Quote:

Either way, still unanswered is how gay marriage adversely affects anyone. Why no answer? When we have eliminated all other possibilities, the valid answer is one that remains. Apparently gay marriage only hurts emotions of those who hate gays. Why is that the only answer? Because still intentionally unanswered: how does gay marriage harm anyone. Gay marriage should be banned only because it is a classic example of being American – because it is socially innovative? Such innovation only hurts emotions of those who hate.

You demand my explanation and then pretend I didn't answer?? Can you really have read my posts and still think that this little rant means anything? More adhominem attacks on his opponents Americanism.

All you did in that entire post was restate your unsupported opinion over and over again while challenging my worth as an American. I'll let people judge for themselves how this reflects on your ability to debate an issue.

Ok, a breather, then on to the next batch of responses...

11-30-2006, 12:06 PM

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

It is an easy question. What is the problem?

9th Engineer · 11-30-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Why can't you make one decision for the sake of that particular decision then worry about the next one when it happens?

Is that seriously how you vote? Or for that matter make any decisions in life??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha

From my perspective, I support gay marriage. I'm not sure what i think about polygamous marriages and so don't really have a point of view on that as yet other than that if all parties love each other then it would seem fair.

Do you see the reasoning. One thing at a time. Might make life easier for yourself.

You are basically telling me you have a blind devotion to the cause and really aren't basing your decision on an underlying set of principles. Are you trying to come across as a siren in that last line? 'Don't think ahead, just do what feels right, it'll be easy'. I wouldn't be this far in life if I followed advice like that.

Quote:

9th, you obviously recognize the legitimate point of view regarding gay marriage,

If you want to phrase it that way then I certainly do, I oppose it.

Quote:

I could give a fuck what anyone else thinks or says. I disagree with his destructive, exclusionary, opinion, that could spread and continue the trend that harms others... so I disagree.

Nice little attack and retreat there rkzenrage, care to provide an explanation of your own logic?
I am a Libertarian at heart, I am, but I am not stupid enough to pretend I live an a libertarian society. For example, I'd love to see a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves and we don't need a welfare system, but I certainly wouldn't vote for a measure to eliminate welfare from our current system.
And for the last time, love is NOT a human right.

9th Engineer · 11-30-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

I absolutely did say how this affects me personally, re-read post 92#. There is nothing more pitiful than a hypocrite, but I see that having a set of principles has gone out of style

11-30-2006, 12:14 PM

Your morals are your actions, not what you say they are.

Undertoad · 11-30-2006, 12:15 PM

The pursuit of happiness is amongst the inalienable rights of man.

11-30-2006, 12:18 PM

Post #92 is about lots of things other than gay marrage... it is a red herring and a non-answer.
Again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

It is an easy question. What is the problem?

Flint · 11-30-2006, 12:22 PM

Do you support gay marriage? No, I don't support polygamy. Hey, look over there!

9th Engineer · 11-30-2006, 12:24 PM

You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based.

Flint · 11-30-2006, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based.

Any argument can easily be made flawless, albeit only within the parameters in which you've framed it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

...I was very idealistic early on...

>>> pssst! you're still very idealistic!

Happy Monkey · 11-30-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based.

You can't come up with anything wrong with gay marriage, and make a vague "[polygamy] would probably cause harm overall" claim. Sounds to me like you have some additional principles that come into play with polygamy that you can't apply to gay marriage, in which case your attempt to join them in post 92 fails.

Flint · 11-30-2006, 01:05 PM

Don't you see? He's inexorably classified them as being "based on the same principles" (defined exclusively by himself, of course) and now Lord Xenu will smite him for hypocrisy if he backpeddles. It's all so clear. THOU CANNOT SUPPORTETH THIS, THOU CANNOT PROCLAIMETH THAT etc. etc.

9th Engineer · 11-30-2006, 01:18 PM

Lord Xenu? Try any educated, logical, or mature person. If you do not base your decisions on an evaluation of the underlying principles then you have made no thought about it at all. Everyone is gingerly steping around the underlying point that this is all merely an argument based on love, and even though we have a right to the pursuit of happiness there is no stipulation that says you can do so through any means you see fit. The house of cards you call an argument is based on a romantic notion, but this is how you want to see laws made. I want to see a logic trail based on facts and science, no emotion, no claims of who loves who, or who is unhappy. If you cannot do that then you should take your ideas to basement support groups where such drivel is best kept. I turn the burden of proof back on you to convince me that there is a logical reason why I should agree with you without appealing to emotions or flights of fancy.

11-30-2006, 12:22 PM	#115
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	post #92 Do you support gay marriage? No, I don't support polygamy. Hey, look over there! __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-30-2006, 12:24 PM	#116
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-30-2006, 01:05 PM	#119
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	Don't you see? He's inexorably classified them as being "based on the same principles" (defined exclusively by himself, of course) and now Lord Xenu will smite him for hypocrisy if he backpeddles. It's all so clear. THOU CANNOT SUPPORTETH THIS, THOU CANNOT PROCLAIMETH THAT etc. etc. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

11-30-2006, 01:18 PM	#120
9th Engineer Bioengineer and aspiring lawer Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 872	Lord Xenu? Try any educated, logical, or mature person. If you do not base your decisions on an evaluation of the underlying principles then you have made no thought about it at all. Everyone is gingerly steping around the underlying point that this is all merely an argument based on love, and even though we have a right to the pursuit of happiness there is no stipulation that says you can do so through any means you see fit. The house of cards you call an argument is based on a romantic notion, but this is how you want to see laws made. I want to see a logic trail based on facts and science, no emotion, no claims of who loves who, or who is unhappy. If you cannot do that then you should take your ideas to basement support groups where such drivel is best kept. I turn the burden of proof back on you to convince me that there is a logical reason why I should agree with you without appealing to emotions or flights of fancy. __________________ The most valuable renewable resource is stupidity.

11-30-2006, 11:29 AM	#106
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	I've often seen a distinction being made nowadays, at least in written form, between "gay" (homosexual) and "ghey" (teh suxxors).

11-30-2006, 12:06 PM	#109
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally. It is an easy question. What is the problem?

11-30-2006, 12:14 PM	#112
rkzenrage Guest Posts: n/a	Your morals are your actions, not what you say they are.

11-30-2006, 12:15 PM	#113
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	The pursuit of happiness is amongst the inalienable rights of man.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)