(08-06-2010 09:31 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:03 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 08:29 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Civil unions have been offered. It's an honest, legitimate compromise. Gays say no. They are just as insistent about being in your face as the Muslims at Ground Zero. They make their demands and set the terms and no amount of accommodation from the rest of us matters.

Based on this response I have a few questions...

1. Why do you feel that there needs to be a 'compromise' instead of just letting them get married? I mean, it affects you in no way, shape, or form.

Sure it does. Insurance rates and freedom of religion come to mind rather quickly. Ergo, you're wrong.

Quote:2. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people that believe the way that you and others on here do are just as much in their face as they are in yours.

Where? Who keeps bringing this subject up? (You're 0-2 at this point).

Quote:3. This is more toward others posts in this thread. If everything is so equal and there is no problems, then why is something like 'Prop 8' necessary in the first place? If you really think it is equal and don't have a problem with it being equal, then why is what is going on happening in the first place? Maybe because it really isn't equality?

Uh, Prop 8 is needed b/c of #2. Duh. (0-3)

Quote:4. Why are so many people so worried about what others do in their private lives? Especially for a group of people who are more anal about personal privacy that any others I know of...

No one here is bringing up what goes on in their personal lives; quite the opposite, these activists are the ones putting it out there in everyone's face.

0-4. But thanks for demonstrating that this isn't an issue that has logic on its side, rather it's just a whimsical appeal for what a vocal minority happens to feel is "fair." That's not a way to build a stable society.

Ok...first of all the guy I quoted brought up the whole 'in your face' thing. Way to go on that one.

So personal beliefs is an appropriate excuse for denying these people rights? So then you are simply stating that religious personal beliefs are superior to their personal beliefs. Please explain why that is true.

One of the biggest proponents for people to stand against gay's rights are because they are against what is going on in the bedroom...aka 'private life'.

Prop 8 is needed simply to continue the defamation of human rights by one group who deems their own views as superior to others based on their own arogance and bigoted ways.

Thank you for your very narrow view on the subject and your absolutely absurd responses. That is like me saying I don't think you should be allowed to go to church because I don't but I'm paying taxes on that building and for you to go there.

Anyway...I'm at work. I'll post later as I'm sure you are all excited.

Torch is a little slow. Please forgive him.

(08-06-2010 10:01 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Ok...first of all the guy I quoted brought up the whole 'in your face' thing. Way to go on that one.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Quote:So personal beliefs is an appropriate excuse for denying these people rights? So then you are simply stating that religious personal beliefs are superior to their personal beliefs. Please explain why that is true.

Don't present some straw man and expect me to defend it. This is your logical fallacy.

Quote:One of the biggest proponents for people to stand against gay's rights are because they are against what is going on in the bedroom...aka 'private life'.

Wrong again.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to see fallacious reasoning when you train yourself not to be persuaded by clever (or not-so-clever) sophistry. Of course you've got to want to do this, whereas a lot of people seem to like being deluded.

Quote:Prop 8 is needed simply to continue the defamation of human rights by one group who deems their own views as superior to others based on their own arogance and bigoted ways.

"Simply." How about "simple minded"?

Quote:Thank you for your very narrow view on the subject and your absolutely absurd responses.

Funny use of the word "absurd." You make a decision based on feelings, and the rational people are "absurd." So goes modern education.

(08-06-2010 09:03 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 08:29 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Civil unions have been offered. It's an honest, legitimate compromise. Gays say no. They are just as insistent about being in your face as the Muslims at Ground Zero. They make their demands and set the terms and no amount of accommodation from the rest of us matters.

Based on this response I have a few questions...

1. Why do you feel that there needs to be a 'compromise' instead of just letting them get married? I mean, it affects you in no way, shape, or form.

2. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that people that believe the way that you and others on here do are just as much in their face as they are in yours. The only difference is they have a legit reason to be. So, why the ignorance?

3. This is more toward others posts in this thread. If everything is so equal and there is no problems, then why is something like 'Prop 8' necessary in the first place? If you really think it is equal and don't have a problem with it being equal, then why is what is going on happening in the first place? Maybe because it really isn't equality?

4. Why are so many people so worried about what others do in their private lives? Especially for a group of people who are more anal about personal privacy that any others I know of...

1. Because the institution of Marriage has always been about a man and a woman

2. huh?

3. Prop 8 is necessary because judges, not law makers or voters, started to make laws.

4. Marriage is *not* private. You register with the state and get married in front of a judge or *shudder* priest. What in the hell is 'private' about that?

(08-06-2010 10:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 10:01 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Ok...first of all the guy I quoted brought up the whole 'in your face' thing. Way to go on that one.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Not surprising. You have a tough time understanding anything that involves using your brain.

Quote:So personal beliefs is an appropriate excuse for denying these people rights? So then you are simply stating that religious personal beliefs are superior to their personal beliefs. Please explain why that is true.

Don't present some straw man and expect me to defend it. This is your logical fallacy.

Straw men? No. Admit it Torchy YOUR personal religous beliefs are the reason you think these people should be denied their rights. The truth shall set you free.

Quote:One of the biggest proponents for people to stand against gay's rights are because they are against what is going on in the bedroom...aka 'private life'.

Wrong again.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to see fallacious reasoning when you train yourself not to be persuaded by clever (or not-so-clever) sophistry. Of course you've got to want to do this, whereas a lot of people seem to like being deluded.

Well, it is obvious you are a pathological liar.

Quote:Prop 8 is needed simply to continue the defamation of human rights by one group who deems their own views as superior to others based on their own arogance and bigoted ways.

"Simply." How about "simple minded"?

A large portion of the cost to get Prop 8 on the ballot was the Mormon church. But yeah, this isn't about religion. Seems like YOU are the one that is simple minded(of course, we already knew that).

Quote:Thank you for your very narrow view on the subject and your absolutely absurd responses.

Funny use of the word "absurd." You make a decision based on feelings, and the rational people are "absurd." So goes modern education.

So you making your decision based on YOUR religion isn't absurd?

(08-06-2010 10:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 10:01 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  Ok...first of all the guy I quoted brought up the whole 'in your face' thing. Way to go on that one.

I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Quote:So personal beliefs is an appropriate excuse for denying these people rights? So then you are simply stating that religious personal beliefs are superior to their personal beliefs. Please explain why that is true.

Don't present some straw man and expect me to defend it. This is your logical fallacy.

Quote:One of the biggest proponents for people to stand against gay's rights are because they are against what is going on in the bedroom...aka 'private life'.

Wrong again.
You'd be surprised how easy it is to see fallacious reasoning when you train yourself not to be persuaded by clever (or not-so-clever) sophistry. Of course you've got to want to do this, whereas a lot of people seem to like being deluded.

Quote:Prop 8 is needed simply to continue the defamation of human rights by one group who deems their own views as superior to others based on their own arogance and bigoted ways.

"Simply." How about "simple minded"?

Quote:Thank you for your very narrow view on the subject and your absolutely absurd responses.

Funny use of the word "absurd." You make a decision based on feelings, and the rational people are "absurd." So goes modern education.

Dude, really?

You asked who brought up the 'in your face' thing. I answered. READ.

There is nothing straw man about that at all. You said 'freedom of religion' is a reason gays should not be allowed to get married. I asked you why you think religious personal beliefs trump other's personal beliefs. So, either answer the question or quit making stupid claims such as 'straw man'.

Your other "points" were not even valid answers just you on some type of rant about something that holds no weight in this discussion. I'm assuming it is your way of not answering the questions directly.

PLEASE explain how denying someone basic rights or harmless desires of equality based on the fact that you simply disagree with their choice in life partner is rational.

PLEASE explain how me wanting to give others freedom is irrational.

(08-06-2010 09:58 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 09:47 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  

(08-05-2010 07:20 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-04-2010 09:41 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Marriage is essentially a contractual agreement with the government...otherwise you would not need a license.

I would submit that those that oppose the gays being able to enter into the same contract as them...start opposing the governmental licensing contract...otherwise STFU about it.

Ok, tell me precisely what I can do that gays cannot do. Tell me how that the current provisions that are identical for US citizens are suddenly not "equal".

You can't get much more "equal" than identical.

There are 1,138 federal rights, protections and responsibilities automatically granted to married heterosexual couples, and denied to same-sex couples.

So? We're talking about individuals' rights. And every individual currently has equal access to those "rights, protections and responsibilities." QED

Really? I thought we were talking about a ban on gay marriage, and the argument that civil-unions don't provide the same legal rights as a marriage contract.

We were...until you had to ruin it by posting a bunch of FACTS. You see, then they have to change the topic for fear of being wrong.

(08-06-2010 11:14 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  PLEASE explain how me wanting to give others freedom is irrational.

Explain to me what freedom has been denied.

(08-06-2010 11:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:14 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  PLEASE explain how me wanting to give others freedom is irrational.

Explain to me what freedom has been denied.

Why don't you just read dwr0109's post. I know you don't want to because of the truth that it contains.

You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

(08-06-2010 11:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:14 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  PLEASE explain how me wanting to give others freedom is irrational.

Explain to me what freedom has been denied.

I think I provided a perfect example of where their right to will away property is taken away in Ohio...

(08-06-2010 11:35 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:14 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  PLEASE explain how me wanting to give others freedom is irrational.

Explain to me what freedom has been denied.

I think I provided a perfect example of where their right to will away property is taken away in Ohio...

1. You didn't. You provided an anecdote that may or may not be true. And even if it is true, is a symptom of a poorly applied state law.

2. You're missing the point. The law is applied equally. Gays and straights follow identical laws.

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

No. You won't answer the question because you know you can't answer with a rational response.

Geez.

Just call the governmental licensing thing something besides marriage, give all couples the same legal rights when they sign the contract. And let the churches grant marriages in whichever way they deem correct.

Maybe that will have a fighting chance of getting the gays and right-wingers to shut the **** up about this, so we can focus on the larger problems in our country.

(08-06-2010 12:34 PM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Geez.

Just call the governmental licensing thing something besides marriage, give all couples the same legal rights when they sign the contract. And let the churches grant marriages in whichever way they deem correct.

Maybe that will have a fighting chance of getting the gays and right-wingers to shut the **** up about this, so we can focus on the larger problems in our country.

Well, it wouldn't shut up either side so that plan is pretty much useless in that regaurd.

(08-06-2010 08:29 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Civil unions have been offered. It's an honest, legitimate compromise. Gays say no. They are just as insistent about being in your face as the Muslims at Ground Zero. They make their demands and set the terms and no amount of accommodation from the rest of us matters.

The gays do not object to civil unions for everyone. They object to CU's only being for them and I agree that the law should be consistent across the board for all contracts of this nature. The government has no damn business getting involved in how people contract with each other as long as they are consenting adults and no theft, fraud or violence is involved. Marriage should be a strictly a personal ceremonial affair.

Someone please explain why legally it should be different for the gays to contract with each other differently than straights? Is the law not supposed to be the same for everyone?

(08-06-2010 01:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree that the law should be consistent across the board for all contracts of this nature.

Curiously enough, it currently is.

Quote: The government has no damn business getting involved in how people contract with each other as long as they are consenting adults and no theft, fraud or violence is involved.

Then what are all those tomes on contract law all about? Reality is far more complicated than you paint it.

Quote:Someone please explain why legally it should be different for the gays to contract with each other differently than straights? Is the law not supposed to be the same for everyone?

Well, as I said before, it is the same. So it's not about equal treatment under the law.

It's a fact that there are legal consequences of the status of marriage. Those consequences are predicated on the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. Change that, and the consequences must change in response.

Thus, the entire country is affected by this decision, even if many members don't care.

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

Right, even though in no way can you explain as to why they are irrational.

Way to dodge the tough questions. Whatever helps you keep that deluded line of thought going I suppose.

(08-06-2010 02:31 PM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 12:00 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 11:32 AM)Paul of Troy Wrote:  You still didn't answer my questions though. Typical, especially for you.

Absolutely. I don't have time to deal with stupid, irrational questions.

Right, even though in no way can you explain as to why they are irrational.

I did. But apparently the words were too big for you.

(08-06-2010 02:06 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-06-2010 01:59 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I agree that the law should be consistent across the board for all contracts of this nature.

Curiously enough, it currently is.

Quote: The government has no damn business getting involved in how people contract with each other as long as they are consenting adults and no theft, fraud or violence is involved.

Then what are all those tomes on contract law all about? Reality is far more complicated than you paint it.

Quote:Someone please explain why legally it should be different for the gays to contract with each other differently than straights? Is the law not supposed to be the same for everyone?

Well, as I said before, it is the same. So it's not about equal treatment under the law.

It's a fact that there are legal consequences of the status of marriage. Those consequences are predicated on the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman. Change that, and the consequences must change in response.

Please explain why the consequences of the marriage contract involving social security benefits, tax benefits, disability benefits, military and veterans benefits, decision-making in a medical emergency etc. etc., must change if same-sex couples are included. What role does gender or combination of genders play in these legal issues?