Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
My goodness the extent of fallacious "reasoning" here is astonishing.
I was tempted to apologize for calling you a fool, but I've decided to add on that you're an idiot too. Or maybe I should say ignoramus so that I can follow your example and throw in multisyllabic words to make myself sound more intelligent than the idiotic crap you keep posting.
I'm bisexual. I'm transgendered. I didn't chose to be either of those things. Hence, it's not a choice. But again that's just another of my continuing fallacious arguments. You talk of "fallacious arguments" and then throw in "God-given rights." To borrow your words:
Holy shit, are you seriously thinking you've made a real argument here?
As a person who wants actual evidence, God is a pretty weak argument. Exactly what proof can you present for the existence of such a thing? And while we're at it, perhaps you could be more specific as to which deity you are referencing. Shiva, Allah, Odin, Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
If you're going to deride someone for insults, you should perhaps refrain from insults yourself.
You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs".
Which is exactly what you did. Geez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles.
I wasn't making fun of anyone's misfortunes. Sorry for your faulty inference there.
How ironic of you to accuse me of simply dismissing things while you do the exact same thing right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care.
And the irony from the guys who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I never expected you do a 180
What the **** are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you?
Says the guy who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?" ... called someone an idiot...like the post where another called me an idiot. Priceless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles.
Another faulty inference on your part. I'm not rolling my eyes are anyone's personal struggles. I'm rolling my eyes at (some) of your responses. Get it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles.
Bullshit. Trying to address your comments point by point is perfectly valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people.
I have no interest in telling other people how they should live. Perhaps you are projecting. And here again you demonstrate that you know nothing about me except the caricature you've created in your head because we disagree. It simply makes you feel better to agree that I'm an idiot and believe that I don't care about anyone and that I'm even laughing at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you.
Then, I would think, you should want it to end also.
You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
I would like to point out that 'civil rights' traditionally refer to immutable characteristics. This ruling is significant in that its probably the first (dont hold me to that as I dont know history perfectly) to include a characteristic that is mutable. Being gay has not been proven to be an immutable characteristic, just lots of speculation. People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who... just saying.
You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!
And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.
You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!
And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.
Yeah, and the mutability isn't really relevant anyway.
These issues are usually muddled up with a lot of distracting factors.
The fundamental question is who has any right to say who can live, sleep, do whatever together or not. No one except the individuals involved (again this presumes consenting adults.) No one has any right to deny anyone else this right. No one has a right to impose their values on anyone else or make them accept said values. The problem is that some people want it both ways. Some want to tell some group (like Christians or other people of faith) that they cannot impose their values or make someone else accept their values...but the reverse is not true. If I'm part of same-gender couple, I expect everyone else to accept, approve and support this choice, these values and if you decline, I'llsueyou.
Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.
Yeah, what's with the Judeo Christian religious concern with marriage? Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.
Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together is a middle ages sort of thing that has no place in a free modern society. If people want to be married as a declaration of their love for one another, that is fine. To do so for the financial benefits is an entirely different situation regardless of sexual orientation.
Traditionally the benefits being inherited by the spouse of the primary wage earner made sense because in a typical family the wife would forego a career in order to stay at home and care for children, but in today's society a family can't even make it unless both parents work full time so now days the wife should already have her own retirement benefits. Likewise with same sex couples. Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint, just like today's churches are mostly non-profit corporations.
Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.
Were they? Is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together...
Who is doing that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint...
From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.
From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.
I agree with this in principle however like every law, it is complicated. Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them but for those whom the current law is an advantage, they are against changing it even though they may not have any predisposed prejudice against gay couples. It is really about finances at this point, not morality. You can't please everyone. That is just the way democracies work.
You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
Oh the irony of that statement coming from you. <img alt="lol.gif" id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372370421468_655" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;" name="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1372370421468_655">
Except that on the occasions that I post there I actually engage the issues and arguments rather than hiding behind the silly rolling eyes and accusations of logical fallacies that you rely on when you have no argument. Which is most of the time. So where, exactly, is the irony?
Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them...
In what way exactly?
In several ways. You know what they are. For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner. Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...
For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner.
That's a tax code issue. The tax code needs to be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...
Employers should be allowed to do that. The deeper problem here is employee-provided health insurance which, interestingly, is a consequence of the tax code too.
The better solution here is a dramatic simplification of the tax code and, probably, the elimination of the income tax.
ExceptionHandler wrote, " People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who".
Since people make a choice to be gay, they could also choose to be not gay, right?
See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."
See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."
Serious question.
So people make a choice to be gay but they don't make a choice to be straight?
Comments
You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
They were that same as saying "I don't need to make an argument if I can just dismiss theirs".
Which is exactly what you did. Geez.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Sprinkle in some "words of the day" and don't I sound smart making fun of other people's misfortunes with no-content lines while speaking in circles.
I wasn't making fun of anyone's misfortunes. Sorry for your faulty inference there.
How ironic of you to accuse me of simply dismissing things while you do the exact same thing right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I was trying to have a calm, interesting debate between two people who started with opposing views to see if in some places we can find some common ground, and you took the opportunity to talk down to me in every single opportunity, if you thought I was adding sarcasm or something, i don't know and now don't care.
And the irony from the guys who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
I never expected you do a 180
What the **** are you talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Hell, I even defended you to try to keep some civil debate going but you aren't having that aren't you?
Says the guy who said: "Holy shit, are you for real?" ... called someone an idiot...like the post where another called me an idiot. Priceless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You roll your eyes at peoples personal struggles.
Another faulty inference on your part. I'm not rolling my eyes are anyone's personal struggles. I'm rolling my eyes at (some) of your responses. Get it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You rage against the government control yet don't give a shit about your community, small or large.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You cherry pick portions of lines to say I'm not making point yet ignore any context of this large, multi post debate because doing so allows you to keep talking down at peoples struggles.
Bullshit. Trying to address your comments point by point is perfectly valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
You seem to be Ultra- individualist trying to tell other people how they should be while you actually don't give a shit about other people.
I have no interest in telling other people how they should live. Perhaps you are projecting. And here again you demonstrate that you know nothing about me except the caricature you've created in your head because we disagree. It simply makes you feel better to agree that I'm an idiot and believe that I don't care about anyone and that I'm even laughing at them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by websnap
Thank goodness you want government to end cause government is filled with people just like you.
Then, I would think, you should want it to end also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
You would have to spend more time hanging out in the Political Insider section of these forums, where this kind of pseudo-intellectual nonsense is the norm.
Oh the irony of that statement coming from you.
You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!
And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by galore2112
You don't have to know anything about history to know that other mutable characteristics are protected rights, like freedom of religion. Unless you were born Christian like Jesus?!
And no, sexual orientation can't be changed for at least some people.
Yeah, and the mutability isn't really relevant anyway.
These issues are usually muddled up with a lot of distracting factors.
The fundamental question is who has any right to say who can live, sleep, do whatever together or not. No one except the individuals involved (again this presumes consenting adults.) No one has any right to deny anyone else this right. No one has a right to impose their values on anyone else or make them accept said values. The problem is that some people want it both ways. Some want to tell some group (like Christians or other people of faith) that they cannot impose their values or make someone else accept their values...but the reverse is not true. If I'm part of same-gender couple, I expect everyone else to accept, approve and support this choice, these values and if you decline, I'll sue you.
P.S. Technically Jesus was born a Jew.
Just asking...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Pretty sure he was born, lived & died a Jew...
Indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
So when did you choose to be straight instead of gay?
Just asking...
You guys seriously need to come up with some new truthy bumper sticker slogans because this one is getting old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Londor
Marriage predates religion. Get your facts right.
Citation?
Edit: Given religion is basically defined as the belief and worship of a controlling power, it's hard to imagine pre-that, I'd call it a tie.
Yeah, what's with the Judeo Christian religious concern with marriage? Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.
Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together is a middle ages sort of thing that has no place in a free modern society. If people want to be married as a declaration of their love for one another, that is fine. To do so for the financial benefits is an entirely different situation regardless of sexual orientation.
Traditionally the benefits being inherited by the spouse of the primary wage earner made sense because in a typical family the wife would forego a career in order to stay at home and care for children, but in today's society a family can't even make it unless both parents work full time so now days the wife should already have her own retirement benefits. Likewise with same sex couples. Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint, just like today's churches are mostly non-profit corporations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Adam and Eve were just shacking up, so the entire human race is technically illegitimate.
Were they? Is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Forcing people to be married in order to sleep together...
Who is doing that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Modern marriage should resemble an LLP from a legal standpoint...
From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
From a legal standpoint is kinda-sorta is. BTW, this is another point/argument that supports the government getting out of this issue entirely. Marriage could (and should) be a private contractual arrangement and, if it is your belief, blessed by God and the church as a separate piece. No need for the state to be involved with this at all.
I agree with this in principle however like every law, it is complicated. Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them but for those whom the current law is an advantage, they are against changing it even though they may not have any predisposed prejudice against gay couples. It is really about finances at this point, not morality. You can't please everyone. That is just the way democracies work.
Except that on the occasions that I post there I actually engage the issues and arguments rather than hiding behind the silly rolling eyes and accusations of logical fallacies that you rely on when you have no argument. Which is most of the time. So where, exactly, is the irony?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them...
In what way exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Gay couples feel that the current laws are a disadvantage to them...
In what way exactly?
In several ways. You know what they are. For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner. Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
You know what they are.
No I don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
For example the reason this case was just being heard in the Supreme Court. One partner was forced to pay estate tax on their joint property after the passing of her partner.
That's a tax code issue. The tax code needs to be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Others include some employers not allowing civil union partners to receive family group health coverage and so on...
Employers should be allowed to do that. The deeper problem here is employee-provided health insurance which, interestingly, is a consequence of the tax code too.
The better solution here is a dramatic simplification of the tax code and, probably, the elimination of the income tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
That's a tax code issue. The tax code needs to be changed.
Last time I checked the tax code was a law. Coincidently a law that is is a disadvantage for gay civil unions as I originally commented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Last time I checked the tax code was a law. Coincidently a law that is is a disadvantage for gay civil unions as I originally commented.
Fair enough. But the real solution is to change the bad laws like that then. That's the battle to fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
You guys seriously need to come up with some new truthy bumper sticker slogans because this one is getting old.
Who "guys"?
But please follow the conversation.
ExceptionHandler wrote, " People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who".
Since people make a choice to be gay, they could also choose to be not gay, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
Who "guys"?
Everyone who asks that ridiculous question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
But please follow the conversation.
I saw it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA
ExceptionHandler wrote, " People choose to be gay just as people choose to marry and who".
Since people make a choice to be gay, they could also choose to be not gay, right?
See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
See point about this being a ridiculous, tired and worn out "argument" whose only value is its whiff of truthiness and the power that people like you seem to think it has as some kind of ultimate trump card is the "debate."
Serious question.
So people make a choice to be gay but they don't make a choice to be straight?
If that's the battle to fight then you should do that instead of implying that gays shouldn't get equal treatment under the law.