jakee 1,255 #151 October 25, 2009 QuoteNo. If I make an effort to argue points with an individual, I expect counter arguments to these points first, rather than counter arguments I've made to somebody else. You had counter arguments to those too, at roughly the same time, so stop whinging. QuoteWhilst it's entirely an idividuals right to pick and chose who and what to argue against, why muddy the waters by picking other points? It's not muddying the waters if you're capable of keeping track of your own arguments. If you're not, that's your problem and no-one elses. QuoteAnd of course, advocating against same sex marriage is drivel isn't it? The way you're doing it? Yeah!Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #152 October 25, 2009 QuoteCan you even fathom that those were just examples Yes, but if the examples you use to support you argument actually contradict you argument then what good are they? If you argue that Genesis is over 5,000 years old and to support it make reference to supposed experts who say it's less than 4,500 years old what are we supposed to think of you? QuoteI was the one who asked YOU for proof or a citation. You were also the one who provided the original assertion. Why should I provide a citation to counter an assertion that you have cited nothing in support of? I've given you an example of a work mentioning marriage that is older than the one that you've mentioned - you've ignored it. What more do you expect? QuoteAll you ever do is go around and around twisting things and making yourself seem knowledgeable only to YOU. That you think I'm twisting things is testament only to your utter inability to comprehend a straightforward, logical train of thought.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #153 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? How could anybody say it's right?. I've told you why. You haven't provided any counter to my reason why it is right, and you haven't addressed my counter of your argument why it's wrong. It appears that you've completely stalled and all you have left is shouting "wrong wrong wrong!" until everyone else back away slowly and leaves you alone.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #154 October 25, 2009 Quote Quote No. If I make an effort to argue points with an individual, I expect counter arguments to these points first, rather than counter arguments I've made to somebody else. Sucks to post on an open forum then, doesn't it. Hence the reason you spend the majority of your adult life here, with your wonderful one-liners, eh? C'mon. My motivation is to discuss the topic, yet I'm always drawn into a sly 'non-personal attacking' slagging match. I'm sorry, but that's akin to your modus-operandi. I'd rather just discuss the topic without the lack of integrity we're seeing. Sometimes I therefore feel like telling somebody to...well, you know what. Because I'd tell the person to do so in real life if I suspected such underhand tactics. And you know what the outcome would be too. Now. Are we going to discuss the topic, or are you going to revert to your standard childish point taking? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #155 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? How could anybody say it's right?. I've told you why. You haven't provided any counter to my reason why it is right, and you haven't addressed my counter of your argument why it's wrong. It appears that you've completely stalled and all you have left is shouting "wrong wrong wrong!" until everyone else back away slowly and leaves you alone. No. My points have been made continually through-out the last several pages. Addressing your argument of consenting adults, with the use of your backspace key, you'll be able to view my points. Next? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #156 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteIt's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? Please define "consenting adults." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #157 October 25, 2009 QuoteAddressing your argument of consenting adults, with the use of your backspace key, you'll be able to view my points. I wont, because you haven't. What is wrong with consenting adults entering into whatever gender-combination longterm partnership of their choice? What I did find looking back through your posts, though, is this - "So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose?" This is where the root of your problem lies, and this is where you parted company with the thought processes of everyone else here. The question is not "what reason is there that we should tolerate this" but "what reason is there we should not tolerate this". If you are genuinely approaching these issues with a view that things should be banned unless there is a good reason to allow them then your midset is seriously at odds with the very essense of what makes a free society. Things should be allowed unless there is a very good reason to ban them. It's the difference between Fascism and freedom. Oh, and in that post I also found (again) This snippet; "To me, it's the permanent binding of a male and female to be forever faithful to their partner. Now if they're gay, how can a species survive?" Once more, for the cheap seats, the species is not at risk. No-one is advocating lifelong gay partnerships for everyone. Allowing gay marriages will not make everyone gay, or lock everyone into childless gay unions. The human race will continue to (over) reproduce at the same rate regardless of whether gay marriages are allowed or not.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #158 October 25, 2009 >So if all of a sudden animals started pairing with other >animals, permanently, you'd call this normal? Animals do pair with other animals permanently. It's not abnormal. They also form temporary pairs. They also form polygamous relationships and same-sex relationships, on their own, with no help from us. Perfectly natural. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #159 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? Please define "consenting adults." Which of the two words are you having trouble with? That's not a snide remark, it's a genuine question.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #160 October 25, 2009 >But being gay is neither a religion or an ethnicity, so why put it amongst these? Because some of us feel that all people, not just those of a certain sexual orientation, religion, race or political party, deserve the same rights. Using one category to deny people rights has a long history, but fortunately we are starting to move beyond that. >Why not also include other deviant elements of sexuality? I'm all for that! If you want your fiancee to do something unnatural - tie you up, dress like a cowboy, have sex in the missionary position, even (gasp!) not have kids - I think you should still be able to marry her. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #161 October 25, 2009 Yep and if you wanted to marry Jakee that is fine as well, just call it a civil union. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #162 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteIt's the permanent binding of two gay people that's being discussed - it's abnormal. How could anybody say it's right? Because it can make two consenting adults very happy without adversely affecting anyone else in any way. How could anybody say it's wrong? Please define "consenting adults." Which of the two words are you having trouble with? That's not a snide remark, it's a genuine question. Define "adult" then. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #163 October 25, 2009 QuoteDefine "adult" then. Almost anyone over the age of majority where you live. Of course there are some with mental difficulties and such who can't be regarded as being able to consent but there's no need to muddy the waters with that, they're not relevant to the discussion of the basic principle. Where on earth are you going with this?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #164 October 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteAddressing your argument of consenting adults, with the use of your backspace key, you'll be able to view my points. I wont, because you haven't. What is wrong with consenting adults entering into whatever gender-combination longterm partnership of their choice? Use 'back' for answers. QuoteWhat I did find looking back through your posts, though, is this - "So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose?" This is where the root of your problem lies, and this is where you parted company with the thought processes of everyone else here. The question is not "what reason is there that we should tolerate this" but "what reason is there we should not tolerate this". Simple. It's unnatural. I'd rather not tolerate such acts. See the 'back' key. QuoteIf you are genuinely approaching these issues with a view that things should be banned unless there is a good reason to allow them then your midset is seriously at odds with the very essense of what makes a free society. Things should be allowed unless there is a very good reason to ban them. It's the difference between Fascism and freedom. And isn't there a good reason not to allow homosexual weddings? Duh! Of course not, what harm could it do! And whilst we're at it ... what other unnatural acts can we think of to bring into everyday life, because, because, these things are happening!! They're natural - we must tolerate them, and ... and ... QuoteOh, and in that post I also found (again) This snippet; "To me, it's the permanent binding of a male and female to be forever faithful to their partner. Now if they're gay, how can a species survive?" Once more, for the cheap seats, the species is not at risk. No-one is advocating lifelong gay partnerships for everyone. Allowing gay marriages will not make everyone gay, or lock everyone into childless gay unions. The human race will continue to (over) reproduce at the same rate regardless of whether gay marriages are allowed or not. Fair enough. Why not allow murder? The human race will still go on as described . . . . 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #165 October 25, 2009 Quote >So if all of a sudden animals started pairing with other >animals, permanently, you'd call this normal? Animals do pair with other animals permanently. It's not abnormal. They also form temporary pairs. They also form polygamous relationships and same-sex relationships, on their own, with no help from us. Perfectly natural. Uh-huh, and are they breeding together? Is it the majority of the animals or the minority? Please also provide evidence of animals partnering together permanently. Animals partnering the same sex for life is abnormal; if they were to do so they'd soon cease to exist. That's Billy-fuckin-basic mate. I'm surprised you're struggling over this. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #166 October 25, 2009 QuoteUse 'back' for answers. There are none there that haven't already been rebutted. QuoteQuoteWhat I did find looking back through your posts, though, is this - "So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose?" This is where the root of your problem lies, and this is where you parted company with the thought processes of everyone else here. The question is not "what reason is there that we should tolerate this" but "what reason is there we should not tolerate this". Simple. It's unnatural. I'd rather not tolerate such acts. That 'you'd rather not' is not a good enough reason. You don't get to overturn other people's rights because they want to do something that makes you feel a bit funny even though it doesn't directly affect you in any way. Again, the difference between fascism and freedom. QuoteAnd isn't there a good reason not to allow homosexual weddings? Duh! Of course not, what harm could it do! Exactly. What harm could it do? Well? QuoteFair enough. Why not allow murder? The human race will still go on as described. Murder involves harming a non-consenting human being in precisely the way that gay marriage doesn't. Are you really going to try and equate the two? Y'know, I'd almost like to see you try.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #167 October 25, 2009 Quote >But being gay is neither a religion or an ethnicity, so why put it amongst these? Because some of us feel that all people, not just those of a certain sexual orientation, religion, race or political party, deserve the same rights. Using one category to deny people rights has a long history, but fortunately we are starting to move beyond that. Ok, I want to make frogs the leaders of my religious cult. I believe they should have, at the very least, as equal rights as humans. It's my human right to believe in froggy gods, to why the fuck can't they have human rights, similiar to me and you? Do you dare defy the frog believers for fuck sake? >Why not also include other deviant elements of sexuality? I'm all for that! If you want your fiancee to do something unnatural - tie you up, dress like a cowboy, have sex in the missionary position, even (gasp!) not have kids - I think you should still be able to marry her. What's the missionary position you depraved perv? Seriously though, my point still remains, if you wish to make light of it, then shame on you. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #168 October 25, 2009 QuoteIs it the majority of the animals or the minority? Is it the majority of humans who want to enter into same-sex marriages, or the minority? I'll answer that, it's a very small minority. So what is the possible relevance of this repetition of your concern for the future of the human race? It's a non issue. the human race will keep reproducing at the same rate with or without gay marriage. So what is your point?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #169 October 25, 2009 QuoteSeriously though, my point still remains, It doesn't, because it's already been asnwered. Why not include other 'deviant' elements of sexuality, as long as they don't involve harming any non-consenting parties in the way that gay marriage doesn't?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #170 October 25, 2009 Quote Quote Use 'back' for answers. There are none there that haven't already been rebutted. Quote Quote What I did find looking back through your posts, though, is this - "So should we tolerate a minority of gay marriages within our society? To what purpose?" This is where the root of your problem lies, and this is where you parted company with the thought processes of everyone else here. The question is not "what reason is there that we should tolerate this" but "what reason is there we should not tolerate this". Simple. It's unnatural. I'd rather not tolerate such acts. That 'you'd rather not' is not a good enough reason. You don't get to overturn other people's rights because they want to do something that makes you feel a bit funny even though it doesn't directly affect you in any way. Again, the difference between fascism and freedom. Don't think so - the majority of our societies would rather not tolerate it either. That in itself is a perfectly good argument. I want to see men in my society. Ladies. Not fucking pampering gay boys, butch dykes. Quote And isn't there a good reason not to allow homosexual weddings? Duh! Of course not, what harm could it do! Exactly. What harm could it do? Well? And why wouldn't it not cause harm? Quote Fair enough. Why not allow murder? The human race will still go on as described. Murder involves harming a non-consenting human being in precisely the way that gay marriage doesn't. Are you really going to try and equate the two? Y'know, I'd almost like to see you try. The relationship is that both are wrong. If you wish your children to grow up in a society where simple things such as natural attraction to the opposite sex are muted, then crack on. I'd rather we went about things the NATURAL way; if there's the odd character who's a little bit bent then of course, we can tolerate that. But to the extent of af marriage? No. I'd rather see a society where men and women are naturally attracted to each other, not one where fucking idiots say it's perfectly normal for the same sexes to be married to one another. 'Cos it's wrong. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #171 October 25, 2009 QuoteWhere on earth are you going with this? Nowhere "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #172 October 25, 2009 I'd rather see a society with no hunger, crime, or poverty, not one where fucking idiots starve, steal, rape and murder, and don't make enough money to live. cos it's wrong. My point is, you seem to be of the mindset that allowing gay marriage is going to turn everyone gay or somehow force straight people into gay marriages. I'm really not sure where that idea comes from. at all. OK, here's a simple yes or no question, vortex, because i don't know the answer, and it's relevant. we'll go from here in a minute. Are you married?Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #173 October 25, 2009 Pssst don't be hitting on him, his wife is territorial and jakee would be crushed as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BikerBabe 0 #174 October 25, 2009 lmao, no worries there. So if you ARE married, vortex, another yes or no question for you. YES or NO Do you believe that allowing gays to marry will affect your marriage?Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #175 October 25, 2009 Quote I'd rather see a society with no hunger, crime, or poverty, not one where fucking idiots starve, steal, rape and murder, and don't make enough money to live. cos it's wrong. My point is, you seem to be of the mindset that allowing gay marriage is going to turn everyone gay or somehow force straight people into gay marriages. I'm really not sure where that idea comes from. at all. You'd other opinions that were also wrong too. I just said gay marriage is wrong. Wrong for the individuals, their society and their children. 'Cos it's wrong. Quote OK, here's a simple yes or no question, vortex, because i don't know the answer, and it's relevant. we'll go from here in a minute. Are you married? Yep. A long time I was too. Now seperated and getting divorced 'cos my ex-missus thinks i'm a PTSD loon. Now doesn't that give weight to my argument? 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
