Why gay marriage is wrong!

[Skylar]

Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.

Compred with what? Your anecdotal opinion?

Remember, Kaz.....you haven't actually factually established anything. You've made an assertion. You've presented nothing save the assertion itself to back it. That's an opinion.

We have anecdotal evidence vs. your personal opinion. And anecdotal evidence is at least evidence. Not the most compelling. Not rock solid. But at least its evidence.

Where as your opinion is merely your belief.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? What "more" reasons do gays marry than straights?

Validation, recognition and approval of the collective

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

You had a reason for being civilly married. Some gays might have a similar reason or a reason similar to ALL the other married people you know. Do you ask them why they "need government in their bedroom to make them happy?"

Use those words...record the responses for us won't you? Wear your wedding ring.

 

[kaz]

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

My sister is lesbian and married her partner because she loves her. They have been together for over 12 years and there is no benefit for their marriage in the state she lives in. The same applies to my daughters godmother who is likewise married and lesbian. So yes, I agree with you. They marry the people they do for love not government handouts.

Anecdotal stories aren't arguments

However they are facts. Facts trump opinions any day of the week.

Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.

I read about someone who was saved by not wearing a seatbelt. They were thrown clear of the car onto a grassy area. If they wore the seatbelt, they would have been crushed.

True story, but is it an argument against seatbelts? One case?

My mom experienced the same thing when I was two. Of course at the time they had no seatbelts but the fact that she was ejected saved her life.

However, you are comparing physical events to personal feelings. The two are in no way similar so you are in effect comparing a apple with a cruise ship. They don't compare.

I didn't compare "physical events to personal feelings." I addressed the irrelevancy of anecdotal stories to well formed arguments

 

[kaz]

Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.

Compred with what? Your anecdotal opinion?

Remember, Kaz.....you haven't actually factually established anything. You've made an assertion. You've presented nothing save the assertion itself to back it. That's an opinion.

We have anecdotal evidence vs. your personal opinion. And anecdotal evidence is at least evidence. Not the most compelling. Not rock solid. But at least its evidence.

Where as your opinion is merely your belief.

So tell me why you need government in your bedroom to have a happy relationship with someone. Let's start there. Anecdotal is fine

 

[kaz]

You had a reason for being civilly married. Some gays might have a similar reason or a reason similar to ALL the other married people you know. Do you ask them why they "need government in their bedroom to make them happy?"

Use those words...record the responses for us won't you? Wear your wedding ring.

Yes, I'm sure there are a lot of parents out there who can accept their kids in gay relationships, but only if they have a government marriage. Tell me how many of those you know

 

[westwall]

My sister is lesbian and married her partner because she loves her. They have been together for over 12 years and there is no benefit for their marriage in the state she lives in. The same applies to my daughters godmother who is likewise married and lesbian. So yes, I agree with you. They marry the people they do for love not government handouts.

Anecdotal stories aren't arguments

However they are facts. Facts trump opinions any day of the week.

Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.

I read about someone who was saved by not wearing a seatbelt. They were thrown clear of the car onto a grassy area. If they wore the seatbelt, they would have been crushed.

True story, but is it an argument against seatbelts? One case?

My mom experienced the same thing when I was two. Of course at the time they had no seatbelts but the fact that she was ejected saved her life.

However, you are comparing physical events to personal feelings. The two are in no way similar so you are in effect comparing a apple with a cruise ship. They don't compare.

I didn't compare "physical events to personal feelings." I addressed the irrelevancy of anecdotal stories to well formed arguments

No, you didn't. Your "well formed" argument ignores mounds of actual scientific data and is based on religious beliefs. I can compare your religious beliefs to ISIS blowing up historical artifacts if you wish, but that would be equally ridiculous.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And that's still defelection either way. it has nothing to do with the points in the Mad Hatters post that I quoted

Good luck with your efforts to abolish all marraige.

Noted, in the future I won't have positions that you don't consider realistic, thanks for the 411 on that, Dopey

This is one of the reasons that the Tea Party is so interesting. Their goals are so surreal.... maybe I should join. I am opposed to having to stand in line for anything. All lines should be abolished, by law.

Um, Tea Party? You stoned off your ass? What do they have to do with anything?

Lighten up. Kaz! I enjoy reading totally unrealistic positions, Tea Party or not. it is just that the Tea party has a franchise on such positions, and I think that you have to pay them a royalty for any position that you have which is totally unrealistic, unless you are a tea bag carrying member!

 

[kaz]

Anecdotal stories aren't arguments

However they are facts. Facts trump opinions any day of the week.

Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.

I read about someone who was saved by not wearing a seatbelt. They were thrown clear of the car onto a grassy area. If they wore the seatbelt, they would have been crushed.

True story, but is it an argument against seatbelts? One case?

My mom experienced the same thing when I was two. Of course at the time they had no seatbelts but the fact that she was ejected saved her life.

However, you are comparing physical events to personal feelings. The two are in no way similar so you are in effect comparing a apple with a cruise ship. They don't compare.

I didn't compare "physical events to personal feelings." I addressed the irrelevancy of anecdotal stories to well formed arguments

No, you didn't. Your "well formed" argument ignores mounds of actual scientific data and is based on religious beliefs. I can compare your religious beliefs to ISIS blowing up historical artifacts if you wish, but that would be equally ridiculous.

That people need government in their bedrooms to be happy in their relationships? What scientific data and religious beliefs are you talking about?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Really? What "more" reasons do gays marry than straights?

Validation, recognition and approval of the collective

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

A crime in itself, I'm sure!

 

[bripat9643]

I can't believe there's still an argument over whether the Confederacy started the war or not...

History isn't based on opinion, it's based on fact. Simple as that.

Bripat, Keys, you're both wrong here if you think the Confederacy had any right to US property. The fact that they tried to buy it shows us that even in THEIR warped minds, they realized it wasn't theirs. What is so hard to understand?

Dixiecrats bewilder me..

That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's **** about facts. BritPat is one of those folks that firmly believes that the US constitutions, US law, and even history means whatever HE believes it means.

Opinion being accepted as fact is the bread and butter of the right wing echo chamber.

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Of course it makes a difference, moron.

You typing the word 'property' magically changes the status of federal holdings?

Says who? If you haven't figured this out yet, you typing an accusation doesn't actually mean that laws, legal definitions, or history magically changes to match.

If you believe that US bases aren't US holdings.....then show us. Don't tell us. And so far, the only thing you've shown is your personal opinion. Which factually establishes exactly jack shit.

Try again.

It's not magic, dumbass. It's a legal difference. I can own property here or I can own property overseas. So can the federal government. Neither of us can station troops on that property without the permission of the host country.

See, that's what it means to be sovereign. It means you have control over what goes on within your borders. If you don't have such control, then you aren't a sovereign country. You're a puppet.

A border is not a property line. It's the line that demarcates where the government of a given territory has control. Ft Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. That's the bottom line. It was part of South Carolina then, and it's still part of South Carolina. If someone is robbed or murdered at Ft Sumter, the case is tried in a South Carolina court room.

 

[kaz]

And that's still defelection either way. it has nothing to do with the points in the Mad Hatters post that I quoted

Good luck with your efforts to abolish all marraige.

Noted, in the future I won't have positions that you don't consider realistic, thanks for the 411 on that, Dopey

This is one of the reasons that the Tea Party is so interesting. Their goals are so surreal.... maybe I should join. I am opposed to having to stand in line for anything. All lines should be abolished, by law.

Um, Tea Party? You stoned off your ass? What do they have to do with anything?

Lighten up. Kaz! I enjoy reading totally unrealistic positions, Tea Party or not. it is just that the Tea party has a franchise on such positions, and I think that you have to pay them a royalty for any position that you have which is totally unrealistic, unless you are a tea bag carrying member!

I have to lighten down first, but I'll try. Again, what does the Tea Party have to do with our discussion? You a Tea Partier?

I was just thinking, I wonder what the Shah of Iran would have to say about your arguments. Thoughts?

 

[kaz]

Validation, recognition and approval of the collective

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

A crime in itself, I'm sure!

Seawytch claims there are many parents of gays who are fine with the gay but won't let them out of the house without a piece of paper from the government certifying they have a legal marriage. She doesn't seem to be able to add anything to that though, like how she is not full of shit

 

[kaz]

That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's **** about facts. BritPat is one of those folks that firmly believes that the US constitutions, US law, and even history means whatever HE believes it means.

Opinion being accepted as fact is the bread and butter of the right wing echo chamber.

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Of course it makes a difference, moron.

You typing the word 'property' magically changes the status of federal holdings?

Says who? If you haven't figured this out yet, you typing an accusation doesn't actually mean that laws, legal definitions, or history magically changes to match.

If you believe that US bases aren't US holdings.....then show us. Don't tell us. And so far, the only thing you've shown is your personal opinion. Which factually establishes exactly jack shit.

Try again.

It's not magic, dumbass. It's a legal difference. I can own property here or I can own property overseas. So can the federal government. Neither of us can station troops on that property without the permission of the host country.

See, that's what it means to be sovereign. It means you have control over what goes on within your borders. If you don't have such control, then you aren't a sovereign country. You're a puppet.

A border is not a property line. It's the line that demarcates where the government of a given territory has control. Ft Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. That's the bottom line. It was part of South Carolina then, and it's still part of South Carolina. If someone is robbed or murdered at Ft Sumter, the case is tried in a South Carolina court room.

He lost you at "It's"

 

[bripat9643]

I've established that you're a moron who tries to pretend there is no legal difference between property and territory.

I'm the one who doesn't accept your claim that the US has no authority to keep troops in its own military bases. You've made the claim, but have never been able to back it up.

Show us in law where the US had no authority to keep troops in Ft. Sumter after South Carolina 'seceeded'. So far the only source you've cited is you.

And you're nobody.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to tell us what international law Lincoln violated. Remember, Brit....you typing a claim is meaningless. You're gonna have to back it up.

You're too much of a ******* dumbass to bother explaining what everyone knows to be true.

 

[bripat9643]

Listen to the moron who doesn't even understand or care about the distinction between property and territory.

Says the poor, hapless soul who amusingly assumes that typing 'property' somehow changes history and the status of federal holdings.

Of course it makes a difference, moron.

You typing the word 'property' magically changes the status of federal holdings?

Says who? If you haven't figured this out yet, you typing an accusation doesn't actually mean that laws, legal definitions, or history magically changes to match.

If you believe that US bases aren't US holdings.....then show us. Don't tell us. And so far, the only thing you've shown is your personal opinion. Which factually establishes exactly jack shit.

Try again.

It's not magic, dumbass. It's a legal difference. I can own property here or I can own property overseas. So can the federal government. Neither of us can station troops on that property without the permission of the host country.

See, that's what it means to be sovereign. It means you have control over what goes on within your borders. If you don't have such control, then you aren't a sovereign country. You're a puppet.

A border is not a property line. It's the line that demarcates where the government of a given territory has control. Ft Sumter was located within the borders of South Carolina. That's the bottom line. It was part of South Carolina then, and it's still part of South Carolina. If someone is robbed or murdered at Ft Sumter, the case is tried in a South Carolina court room.

He lost you at "It's"

I know. He refuses to get the point because if he acknowledges the difference his main argument is flushed down the toilet, so he keeps pretending to be even dumber than he actually is.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Come on Kaz, I need to know about other changes that need to be made in the world. as soon as you abolish all marriage, what next? How about abolishing schools financed by the government? What the hell is the government doing in the business of education, anyway! Come to think of it, we should privatize the armed forces!

 

[Seawytch]

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

A crime in itself, I'm sure!

Seawytch claims there are many parents of gays who are fine with the gay but won't let them out of the house without a piece of paper from the government certifying they have a legal marriage. She doesn't seem to be able to add anything to that though, like how she is not full of shit

:That's the only reason all the straight married people you know have gotten married? You need to meet more people.

 

[kaz]

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

A crime in itself, I'm sure!

Seawytch claims there are many parents of gays who are fine with the gay but won't let them out of the house without a piece of paper from the government certifying they have a legal marriage. She doesn't seem to be able to add anything to that though, like how she is not full of shit

:That's the only reason all the straight married people you know have gotten married? You need to meet more people.

That wasn't the point I addressed, you stupid wench. You keep saying you got the government marriage for the same reason as me. I didn't address anyone else. Moving the goal posts, your continual game since you aren't smart enough to engage in an actual debate on a topic

 

[Syriusly]

Gay people civilly marry for all the exact same reasons straights do.

And more!

Really? What "more" reasons do gays marry than straights?

Validation, recognition and approval of the collective

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

Who is asking for the government in their bedroom? I thought we were talking about marriage?

Gays finally got the government out of their bedrooms when the Supreme Court overturned anti-gay sodomy laws- though Republicans in Louisiana still want the government in homosexuals bedrooms, since they refused to repeal the law.

 

[Syriusly]

I've met plenty of straight folks that get married because they want to make other people happy. And plenty of gay folks who give a fiddler's **** what anyone thinks of their marriage.

You may be overgeneralizing.

You should have gone with 'Jazz Hands'.

And they need government in their bedroom to make them happy? Why?

The same reasons all the married people (like yourself) you know do.

I need that to make myself happy? You haven't been reading my posts. That was already clear

A crime in itself, I'm sure!

Seawytch claims there are many parents of gays who are fine with the gay but won't let them out of the house without a piece of paper from the government certifying they have a legal marriage. She doesn't seem to be able to add anything to that though, like how she is not full of shit

Really- when did Seawythch say that?