A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[koshergrl]

So? Logical fallacy.

 

[Cenotaph]

"This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."

It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.

It's nothing like research, and the information isn't verified.

This is what happens when people are educated by the tube.

Plus it was made in 1984, and it's done *humorously* in order to hook straight people.

Before Stonewall - Rotten Tomatoes

It's not a fluff piece at all. It describes in detail what all happened during that period of time with homosexuals and gives an inside look at those who were apart of it. I don't think I saw any "celebrites" on there (and if there were, there weren't many). Most of the interviews and commentary were done by those who were apart of the gay community during the first half of the 20th century.

How is the information not verified? How do you come to this conclusion?

Why does it matter if it was made in 1984? It's merely documenting a period of time. It's not arguing the causes of sexual orient (which if it did, then I could see how your point would make sense).

Did you actually watch the documentary?

 

[Cenotaph]

8,934 posts here in thelast few years on gay marriage.
Not one to date that has any evidence whatsoever any negative effects to heterosexual marriage.
Gays are getting married now.
How has it affected ANYONE?
Gay marriage=non issue. Waste of time.

It clearly is an issue, or there wouldn't this much opposition towards it. Why this is is beyond me, though. I frankly don't see why they care so much.

 

[koshergrl]

"This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."

It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.

It's nothing like research, and the information isn't verified.

This is what happens when people are educated by the tube.

Plus it was made in 1984, and it's done *humorously* in order to hook straight people.

Before Stonewall - Rotten Tomatoes

It's not a fluff piece at all. It describes in detail what all happened during that period of time with homosexuals and gives an inside look at those who were apart of it. I don't think I saw any "celebrites" on there (and if there were, there weren't many). Most of the interviews and commentary were done by those who were apart of the gay community during the first half of the 20th century.

How is the information not verified? How do you come to this conclusion?

Why does it matter if it was made in 1984? It's merely documenting a period of time. It's not arguing the causes of sexual orient (which if it did, then I could see how your point would make sense).

Did you actually watch the documentary?

Provide verification of the statement you made.

Aside from a vague reference to a 1984 PBS pro-homo feel good mockumentary. Give specifics.

 

[Vidi]

now youve fallen into the realm of complete ridiculousness.

Homosexuals wishing to have the same rights as married couples are consenting adults, not babies, nor are they commiting fraud, as in your welfare example, nor are they asking for privileges to be given to them that are not already theirs by law.

By reaching into the realm of crazy crackpot what ifs you have just lost the debate.

Uh, no, he didn't.

He made his point. You resort to ad hominem. You lose and you get demerits for being painfully, literally...PAINFULLY stupid.

It's a bit hypocritical to call him on using ad hominem and then proceed to use them yourself.

Dont expect any more from the parrot parade. Art, Kosh never have anything of any value to add to anything. Crazy is too weak a word for them.

 

[Cenotaph]

"This documentary by Greta Schiller takes a look at the sometimes oblique American acknowledgment of homosexuals in the decades before a historical flashpoint in 1969. Late that year, the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in Greenwich Village was stormed by police and its patrons arrested -- resulting in two days of rioting. Allen Ginsberg and other celebrities talk about past police tactics, witch-hunts, censorship, and historical "cleansing" operations that violated human rights and civil liberties -- such as routing gays and lesbians out of the State Department. A certain openness about sexual preferences started appearing in the 1920s and accelerated during World War II, eventually culminating in the organized movements of the 1960s and later demanding an end to discrimination."

It's a fluff piece that uses the comments of celebrities and gay folk, and it primarily focuses on an incident in 1969, with some commentary about what led up to it.

It's nothing like research, and the information isn't verified.

This is what happens when people are educated by the tube.

Plus it was made in 1984, and it's done *humorously* in order to hook straight people.

Before Stonewall - Rotten Tomatoes

It's not a fluff piece at all. It describes in detail what all happened during that period of time with homosexuals and gives an inside look at those who were apart of it. I don't think I saw any "celebrites" on there (and if there were, there weren't many). Most of the interviews and commentary were done by those who were apart of the gay community during the first half of the 20th century.

How is the information not verified? How do you come to this conclusion?

Why does it matter if it was made in 1984? It's merely documenting a period of time. It's not arguing the causes of sexual orient (which if it did, then I could see how your point would make sense).

Did you actually watch the documentary?

Provide verification of the statement you made.

Aside from a vague reference to a 1984 PBS pro-homo feel good mockumentary. Give specifics.

Verification for what?

It clearly is pro-homosexuality, but it's not a "feel good mockumentary." You haven't seen the documentary, so I don't see how you can apply these labels to it... It wouldn't matter, though, seeing that you're the type of person who is rather stubborn and adamant about their opinion. So, regardless of what your actual opinion of it is (if you watch it), you will still stick by your original bogus assertion.

 

[Vidi]

You do not meet the "qualifications" of marriage if you WANT to marry the same sex (like a person wanting to marry their car does not meet the qualifications of marriage).

The church pushing their opinion on the public? How is that forcing? How is that any different from you, pushing your opinion on the public? Sorry, that is really LAME.

You did not answer the questions about the polls. Were they taken in cities with large homosexual populations or were they taken, randomly from households all over the USA?

No where in the Constitution does it say that each citizen has a "right" to be married. There has always been a chunk of the population that did not/could not marry.

I guess the writers of the original laws knew that marriage had been defined for thousands of years, and under estimated how deceitful people would be in the future, re-defining words to "force" confusion, and manipulate society to "their beliefs".

EVERY argument youve made is a faklse argument.

The "natural argument" is defeated by the fact that
1) Thats the same argument "they" made against interracial marriage.
2) the thousands of species of animals that display homosexuality

The Church argument is defeated by the Constitution.

The definition of marriage ( and therefore the qualifications ) is defeated by the reality of history in that Rome and Greece both provided for same sex unions. Hell, theres even a gay couple who were made saints! The Passion of SS. Serge and Bacchus

Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life." More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.

Internet History Sourcebooks Project


The right to marry not being in the Constitution is defeated by the 14th amendment

what else you got?

All you have is lies.

neg me all you want Art. Just because you live in fear, doesnt mean the rest of us do. We are not afraid to find a little history and incorporate it into our world view. We dont need everything to fit into your precious little box.

And stop playing the "what if" game and deal with the issue at hand. Your siblings and parents and children scenario has been answered in more than one thread and you keep coming back to it like its a valid argument. Its not. It only shows how stupid people, trying to cover up their own fear, keep falling back to the same stupid argument ad naseum.

 

[Cenotaph]

Uh, no, he didn't.

He made his point. You resort to ad hominem. You lose and you get demerits for being painfully, literally...PAINFULLY stupid.

It's a bit hypocritical to call him on using ad hominem and then proceed to use them yourself.

Dont expect any more from the parrot parade. Art, Kosh never have anything of any value to add to anything. Crazy is too weak a word for them.

Yea, I don't even know why I bother responding to their posts. It's just a waste of time...

 

[Vidi]

Because such a union is not a marriage.

and because other adult couples are also not allowed to marry.

How is it not marriage? By contemporary standards, gay marriage fits the definition and its qualifications perfectly.

Two people (potentially):

• Sharing a bond on an intellectual, emotional, and physical level.
• Having the desire to live their lives together.

Seems legitimate to me.

Here's another question: why do you care?

If that were indeed a true definition than brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children would be able to marry too.

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The current hysterical fad to change this into someting else is very stupid and short-sighted.

The same argument was made against interracial marriage. How does it feel to agree with fear based bigotry?

 

[Vidi]

Yeah why don't you provide some of that research.

There are wackos in every generation that push for the marginalization of traditional values, and the degradation of women and children. That doesn't mean those values are embrace, common, or worthy of support.

Aleister Crawley comes to mind. Kinsey was a fan of his, too...and from Kinsey we get the modern day model of sex ed in school.

If youve decided that Alister Crowley is a reasonable example then youre further gone than I thought.

How about you base your opinion on TODAY instead of some crazy mystic.


This is the really really world, Kosher, there is no magic. Harry Potter was a fiction story. no one is taking a train to Hogwarts.

 

[Vidi]

It's a bit hypocritical to call him on using ad hominem and then proceed to use them yourself.

Dont expect any more from the parrot parade. Art, Kosh never have anything of any value to add to anything. Crazy is too weak a word for them.

Yea, I don't even know why I bother responding to their posts. It's just a waste of time...

Once Kosher enters the thread, its pretty much over. Shes got crazy down pat. Bringing up Alister Crowley as a valid point? Cmon.

The simple facts are that people who live in fear are going to always fight against anything that is outside their worldview. They cant handle the concept that ANYTHING that they dont specifically endorse could be acceptable to others. If it is acceptable, then there must be something fundamentally wrong with those people, NEVER themselves. Its too threatening to them.

 

[koshergrl]

The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.

The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.

 

[Cenotaph]

The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.

The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.

The verification is the documentary itself.

Watch it.

Also, you didn't provide any evidence that the documentary's information isn't verified.... which I asked for and still have yet to receive an answer.

 

[koshergrl]

In other words, you don't have verification.

You fail.

 

[koshergrl]

People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.

Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.

 

[KevinWestern]

People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.

Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.

Kosh, let me share with you the timeless tale of "The Big Government Thug", enjoy....

.
.
.

(Kosher walks on Soccer Field during a heated game)

Kosher: Listen up everyone! New government mandate: No one is allowed to play soccer, it is hereby outlawed for all.

Soccer Player: Uh, what the heck? Why?

Kosher: The majority agrees that baseball is the best sport, and therefore should be the only sport citizens are allowed to play.

Soccer Player: But look - there's a baseball diamond right over there. How about you go play baseball, and we play soccer. We can do both simultaneously, peacefully. Everyone wins that way, and th..

Kosher: Shut it bucko! Again, baseball is the best sport. With my infinite wisdom and knowledge, I know what's best for you and the entire country, and therefore I feel it my duty to use government authority in order to force you to live by my own personal standards.

Soccer Player: What a dick...

(Soccer players leave field, Kosher smiles arrogantly)

Scene end.

 

[Vidi]

People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.

Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.

It far closer to verufucation than Alister Crowley references. Hypocrite much?

BTW your new avatar is perfect for you. never change it.

 

[Cenotaph]

In other words, you don't have verification.

You fail.

What are you talking about? The evidence and verification of the information presented in the documentary is validated through the interviews and commentary of the people who were apart of that period of time. It's one of the ways we document history...

It's silly to ask of me to verify every single piece of information they present in the documentary. The only reason you ask this is because it's a relatively laborious task, and it's highly unlikely for me to follow through with it. And somehow... you feel that that makes you the victor in this "debate."

Now, I'll do the same. You provide evidence that the information presented in the documentary is not valid and not verified.

 

[Cenotaph]

People please return to school. Watching PBS has rotted your brain and you've lost the ability to communicate, let alone argue, effectively.

Saying "IT SAYS IT ON THIS SHOW I WATCHED" is not verification.

Documentary by a reputable and reliable educational television station*

 

[Vidi]

The thread descended into lunacy when I asked for verification of a statement that couldn't be provided. In other words, when you couldn't provide any substance. It's the same reason progressive threads all over the site go down in flames. Generally, once that happens, 2 or 3 start whining about putting me on ignore...they suffer from the misapprehension that if they pretend to ignore me, nobody will notice that they're lying extremist idealogues.

The threads do go downhill after I enter, because when you loons (progressive libertarian...PFFFTTTT LOLOLOLOL) are faced with your lies and are asked to back them up, you immediately engage in ad hominem attacks, arguments from ignorance, outright lies, and gang banging online progressive style. Thanks for conceding.

The thread descended into lunacy the moment you entered it. As does EVERY thread you enter.

And I just HAVE to ask...were you ever on Trading Spouses? because your posts read like soemthing this woman would post:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3mDLsyn6ns&feature=player_embedded]God warrior! - YouTube[/ame]

Ive been wondering this ever since the first time you neg repped me and every neg rep youve given me like clockwork every time you come into a thread I post in.