Keith 0 #126 September 24, 2003 QuoteThat's because I'm not sure if I want to be a gentleman. Me thinks you prefer being a "Bad Boy"? Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #127 September 24, 2003 Your poll offers a false choice, or whatever that logical fallacy is called. "Support in monogamy" implies that you want to know whether we support gay marriage. I think that expanding the definition of marriage would give polygamists justification to demand acceptance. You will find more explanation of my position and the undeniable logic behind it here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=591715;search_string=polygamy;#591715People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whocares 0 #128 September 24, 2003 Your poll offers a false choice, or whatever that logical fallacy is called. *** He was drunk when writing the poll, now you understand. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #129 September 24, 2003 QuoteYour poll offers a false choice, or whatever that logical fallacy is called. Actually, I wrote exactly the poll I wanted to. Your presumption that gay marriage would lead to other extentions of marriage is not a logical fallacy in my poll. It's simply an additional, unrelated issue. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #130 September 24, 2003 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your poll offers a false choice, or whatever that logical fallacy is called. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Actually, I wrote exactly the poll I wanted to. Your presumption that gay marriage would lead to other extentions of marriage is not a logical fallacy in my poll. It's simply an additional, unrelated issue. The false choice comes from the assumption that not supporting a contractual obligation is connected to wanting gays to be promiscuous. I think these are, as you put it, unrelated issues.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #131 September 24, 2003 QuoteEnough of the vagueness. Let's stop talking about "redefining marriage" and "civil unions" and other buzz words. Let's get down to the core of it. Either you think societal support of monogamy is a good thing or a bad thing. What do you want gay people to have? I know a lot of married people who are promiscuous. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #132 September 24, 2003 To tell you the truth JT I threw the AMIMALS bit in to spark Clay's attention > Worked well I guess. I do have to agree with Steel though.. Homosexual marriage is in the same class as many other "Alternative Lifestyles". If you open the door, and let one in, you will get lawsuits from other groups. People in Utah will want 10 wives ... People in North/South Carolina will want to marry sheep. People in texas will want to marry their own daughters... The list goes on. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #133 September 24, 2003 I really miss the days when the closet doors were closed and I didn't have all this gay shit shoved in my face every fucking day . I am so sick of the gays wanting special rights , protection and acceptance . I really don't give a damn if you accept me and I can live with that , you should learn to do the same . This country is on the road to ruin because of liberal people that can't live with the law of the land . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #134 September 25, 2003 >Actually it does. Forgive me if I don't remember the exact terms > from the DSM III R (I know they are up to DSM IV, but I don't care), > but the bottomline is that these are all unconventional sexual > practices. The DSM doesn't list "unconventional sexual practices." It lists mental disorders - and homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder, unless you want to lump them under "302.9-Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." >What is even more interesting is the hyprocsy involved when it >comes to tolerance. I think tolerance simply depends on how many >people are doing any one of these. No, it depends on your willingness to accept what other people choose to do - whether it's having sex with a guy, getting blowjobs or flying a 4:1 canopy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #135 September 25, 2003 >and I didn't have all this gay shit shoved in my face every fucking day . When's the last time you had gay shit shoved in your face? Does that happen more often than having scantily clad women shoved in your face via billboard ads? >I really don't give a damn if you accept me and I can live with that , > you should learn to do the same . I agree there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightjumps 1 #136 September 25, 2003 QuoteYour poll offers a false choice, or whatever that logical fallacy is called. You are correct regarding the questions. The choices are "double-barreled." Responses should be mutually exclusive. The result is an acquiescence response set. An acquiescence response set is a negative relation with the question, hence skewed results. Survey or "poll" questions should avoid "red flag" words with emotional connotations or that coincide with or contradict strongly-held values. The bottom line is; this poll was not done with the intention of gaining knowledge through syllogistic methodology, or to illicit data for knowledge, but by using an ethymeme. An ethymeme is often viewed as a black box; supplying a missing premise which serves to "open the box." And, evidently that was the goal, because that is the result. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #137 September 25, 2003 QuoteI really miss the days when the closet doors were closed and I didn't have all this gay shit shoved in my face every fucking day . I find it interesting when someone opens and reads a Clearly titled thread then gets angry, to the point of using profanity, claiming it was shoved in their face instead of just passing the thread by.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #138 September 25, 2003 Anger. An appropriate response to love? I guess so... Don't read the thread. Don't watch the shows. Don't participate in the discussions. No one is trying to take any rights 'away' from you. A certain portion of the population wants to be treated as human. Why would you deny them that? Why would that make you angry? Why should they just quietly go away and love who they want, be with who they want as long as YOU don't have to look at it or hear about it? Who the hell are you that you deserve more than someone else? White? Male? Hetero? You don't give a damn because the law is in your favor. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #139 September 25, 2003 Nightjumps, that is brilliant analysis. You are 100% dead on! First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #140 September 25, 2003 Quoteunless you want to lump them under "302.9-Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." Bill, that's a really interesting idea. Of course everyone realizes there's exactly as much basis for thinking 302.9 covers heterosexuality as homosexuality. Maybe we shouldn't go there... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflybella 0 #141 September 25, 2003 Quotebrilliant analysis Oh RIGHT! Jump on board with the BIG WORD guy! Too late, you already admitted you were drunk. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakyflygirl 0 #142 September 25, 2003 QuoteIf heterosexuals have to suffer through being married, it's only fair that homosexuals should too. LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! About spit my drink right on the computer when I read that In all seriousness though, it doesn't take a piece of paper or societies support to make a relationship work.. It's the people involved that provide a stable family, whether there are children involved or not. I have friends that are gay couples and could provide a waaaaaay more stable life than a lot of those "breeders" out there. Of course that's just my .02 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #143 September 25, 2003 QuoteMe thinks you prefer being a "Bad Boy"? Now I'm being lumped into the category of wanting to be a bad boy. You gay people are so narrow-minded. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites D22369 0 #144 September 25, 2003 QuoteIf heterosexuals have to suffer through being married, it's only fair that homosexuals should too. Damn straightt!!!! no more free rides for them. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #145 September 25, 2003 QuoteAnd why am I focusing on the biological necessity of birth? Not all of them have to wait for screwups... MANy children are born where they are not wanted in the first place... a quicky led to more responsibility that will NEVER be assumed. Then you need to take into account the 4 way relationships that some lesbian couples make with a gay guy couple for the purpose of having children...some people are creative in thier desire to have families. But people like the Canadian guy who jumped without a parachute would argue these are not happy couples... or that the children that are in these families are loved or even well adjusted or well raised...but what the hell they are all going to his own personal hell anyway. Think of all the SCREWED up kids that come out of supposedly normal nuclear families where alcholism is present.. or varying forms of abuse... Having children means the parents are RESPONSIBLE for how they are raised.. to be productive members of society.... far too many fail at what should be a normal albiet difficult task. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #146 September 25, 2003 QuoteRe: [billvon] I'm sick of this. Do you want gay people to be supported in monogamy or not? - NEW [In reply to] Quote | Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >A couple in a "gay marriage" could never create and maintain a > family across generations without depending on heterosexual > couples to create babies for them. That will not always be true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are we talking about advances in technology? The only technology needed by some lesbian couples.. is a turkey baster.... and a sperm donor. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #147 September 25, 2003 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and human to animal marriages as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is there so much bigotry in the world. Wouldn't it be better if I just settled down with one special sheep. Instead of being promiscuous with the whole flock. DAYUM that link will need to be saved for posterity.. or is that posterior Now we know where all the sheep references come from.. hell I thought eveyone was joking Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Muenkel 0 #148 September 25, 2003 QuoteThe only technology needed by some lesbian couples.. is a turkey baster.... and a sperm donor. And how appropriate. The happy couple can use that baster every Thanksgiving to give thanks for their wonderful bundle of joy. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Steel 0 #149 September 25, 2003 Quote>Actually it does. Forgive me if I don't remember the exact terms > from the DSM III R (I know they are up to DSM IV, but I don't care), > but the bottomline is that these are all unconventional sexual > practices. The DSM doesn't list "unconventional sexual practices." It lists mental disorders - and homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder, unless you want to lump them under "302.9-Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." Quote You're right. Its not listed as a mental disorder, NOW. But it was not to long ago. I don't remember when it changed. It was either in 3 or 3R. I remember hearing that about a billion times when I was getting my associates in Psych. The question is why did it change. I would say that its because enough people were doing it in an outspoken fashion and complaining that they did not like being told they had a problem. You can say many psychological tests were made to prove that this was harmless to society and something certain people were born with. But inorder for those tests to have been made in the first place somebody had to care. That comes back to strength in numbers. In anycase it is uncoventional because its not the norm. Let me go completely off the topic for another example that proves that numbers are what get things done (unfortunately). Think about health insurance and skydiving. Its real easy for an insurance company to say they don't want to cover you because you skydive. They have no problem explaining that you take more risks than the average person. Now imagine the same health insurance company telling somebody that they would not cover him/her for riding a motorcycle. My experience tells me that people are far more likely to get hurt on a motorcycle but since more people are doing it and AMA is far more powerful than USPA, they could never get away with that. Yes in the end the sad fact is that the world works on bull $h!t and when somebody gives a reason for an action that easily contradicted, they probably know they are full of it anyway.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakyrat 1 #150 September 25, 2003 Hey Dave What about this one and it applies to straight or gay. A gay couple or a straight married couple have 401K programs at work. If either the gay couple wants to leave theirs to the surviving partner or someone else or either one of the straight couple want's to leave theirs to one of their children or someone else who is not ones spouse the IRS takes a 10% cut upfront. Goes for a single person to. Talk about unfair. Also for employees of the federal government or many state governments, any hope of achieving equality in the form of domestic partnership benefits for the gay couple would be out the window if a constitutional amendment would be ratified defining marriage. Hospital visitation rights, health insurance benefits, benefits for adopted children and the list goes on and on. A lot of private Fortune 500 companies already provide these benefits to their gay employees because they feel "it's the right thing to do" . Al this would be in jeopardy if a constitutional amendment is ratified. I personally feel we can provide equality for all without destroying the institution of marriage or getting religion involved. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Muenkel 0 #143 September 25, 2003 QuoteMe thinks you prefer being a "Bad Boy"? Now I'm being lumped into the category of wanting to be a bad boy. You gay people are so narrow-minded. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
D22369 0 #144 September 25, 2003 QuoteIf heterosexuals have to suffer through being married, it's only fair that homosexuals should too. Damn straightt!!!! no more free rides for them. RoyThey say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #145 September 25, 2003 QuoteAnd why am I focusing on the biological necessity of birth? Not all of them have to wait for screwups... MANy children are born where they are not wanted in the first place... a quicky led to more responsibility that will NEVER be assumed. Then you need to take into account the 4 way relationships that some lesbian couples make with a gay guy couple for the purpose of having children...some people are creative in thier desire to have families. But people like the Canadian guy who jumped without a parachute would argue these are not happy couples... or that the children that are in these families are loved or even well adjusted or well raised...but what the hell they are all going to his own personal hell anyway. Think of all the SCREWED up kids that come out of supposedly normal nuclear families where alcholism is present.. or varying forms of abuse... Having children means the parents are RESPONSIBLE for how they are raised.. to be productive members of society.... far too many fail at what should be a normal albiet difficult task. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #146 September 25, 2003 QuoteRe: [billvon] I'm sick of this. Do you want gay people to be supported in monogamy or not? - NEW [In reply to] Quote | Reply -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >A couple in a "gay marriage" could never create and maintain a > family across generations without depending on heterosexual > couples to create babies for them. That will not always be true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are we talking about advances in technology? The only technology needed by some lesbian couples.. is a turkey baster.... and a sperm donor. Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #147 September 25, 2003 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- and human to animal marriages as well. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is there so much bigotry in the world. Wouldn't it be better if I just settled down with one special sheep. Instead of being promiscuous with the whole flock. DAYUM that link will need to be saved for posterity.. or is that posterior Now we know where all the sheep references come from.. hell I thought eveyone was joking Jeanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Muenkel 0 #148 September 25, 2003 QuoteThe only technology needed by some lesbian couples.. is a turkey baster.... and a sperm donor. And how appropriate. The happy couple can use that baster every Thanksgiving to give thanks for their wonderful bundle of joy. _________________________________________ Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steel 0 #149 September 25, 2003 Quote>Actually it does. Forgive me if I don't remember the exact terms > from the DSM III R (I know they are up to DSM IV, but I don't care), > but the bottomline is that these are all unconventional sexual > practices. The DSM doesn't list "unconventional sexual practices." It lists mental disorders - and homosexuality is not listed as a mental disorder, unless you want to lump them under "302.9-Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified." Quote You're right. Its not listed as a mental disorder, NOW. But it was not to long ago. I don't remember when it changed. It was either in 3 or 3R. I remember hearing that about a billion times when I was getting my associates in Psych. The question is why did it change. I would say that its because enough people were doing it in an outspoken fashion and complaining that they did not like being told they had a problem. You can say many psychological tests were made to prove that this was harmless to society and something certain people were born with. But inorder for those tests to have been made in the first place somebody had to care. That comes back to strength in numbers. In anycase it is uncoventional because its not the norm. Let me go completely off the topic for another example that proves that numbers are what get things done (unfortunately). Think about health insurance and skydiving. Its real easy for an insurance company to say they don't want to cover you because you skydive. They have no problem explaining that you take more risks than the average person. Now imagine the same health insurance company telling somebody that they would not cover him/her for riding a motorcycle. My experience tells me that people are far more likely to get hurt on a motorcycle but since more people are doing it and AMA is far more powerful than USPA, they could never get away with that. Yes in the end the sad fact is that the world works on bull $h!t and when somebody gives a reason for an action that easily contradicted, they probably know they are full of it anyway.If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freakyrat 1 #150 September 25, 2003 Hey Dave What about this one and it applies to straight or gay. A gay couple or a straight married couple have 401K programs at work. If either the gay couple wants to leave theirs to the surviving partner or someone else or either one of the straight couple want's to leave theirs to one of their children or someone else who is not ones spouse the IRS takes a 10% cut upfront. Goes for a single person to. Talk about unfair. Also for employees of the federal government or many state governments, any hope of achieving equality in the form of domestic partnership benefits for the gay couple would be out the window if a constitutional amendment would be ratified defining marriage. Hospital visitation rights, health insurance benefits, benefits for adopted children and the list goes on and on. A lot of private Fortune 500 companies already provide these benefits to their gay employees because they feel "it's the right thing to do" . Al this would be in jeopardy if a constitutional amendment is ratified. I personally feel we can provide equality for all without destroying the institution of marriage or getting religion involved. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 6 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
freakyrat 1 #150 September 25, 2003 Hey Dave What about this one and it applies to straight or gay. A gay couple or a straight married couple have 401K programs at work. If either the gay couple wants to leave theirs to the surviving partner or someone else or either one of the straight couple want's to leave theirs to one of their children or someone else who is not ones spouse the IRS takes a 10% cut upfront. Goes for a single person to. Talk about unfair. Also for employees of the federal government or many state governments, any hope of achieving equality in the form of domestic partnership benefits for the gay couple would be out the window if a constitutional amendment would be ratified defining marriage. Hospital visitation rights, health insurance benefits, benefits for adopted children and the list goes on and on. A lot of private Fortune 500 companies already provide these benefits to their gay employees because they feel "it's the right thing to do" . Al this would be in jeopardy if a constitutional amendment is ratified. I personally feel we can provide equality for all without destroying the institution of marriage or getting religion involved. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
