Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Anecdotal stories are clearly in the opinion category as an argument.
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 fuck 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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 fuck 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
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 fuck 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.
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.
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!
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 fuck 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!
That's assuming that the person you're talking to gives a fiddler's fuck 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.
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.I've established that you're a moron who tries to pretend there is no legal difference between property and territory.
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.
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'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 fuck 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
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.
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 fuck 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?
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 fuck 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
