Completely Off-topic! Same-sex marriage.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Jimmy do you actually read before you go blathering off like that?

If you had actually read my comment you would see that I was arguing for your "civil rights" ideal. They don't need to call it marriage to have the exact same rights that married couples do.

Yes, I read it. Had you read mine you would realize the point is not civil union, but to be married.

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus

I personally don't care what you and your boyfriend think.

I'll let my wife know.

Originally posted by Colonel Ingus


You don't need to challenge the concept of mariage. Its nothing more than another way "to strike one for the cause" "to get it out into peoples consciouness" "to make people aware and accept us" (that can actually come from many a fringe group).

That is the only reason people are making an issue out of it.

BS. What organization for gay rights or group of gay people told you this?

You are assuming this because of biased. 'Those gays, trying to stick one to us.'

Each and every single thing I have seen is that it is about equality and civil rights.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
Jimmy, I'll be the first to defend your right to state your opinions on a subject, but could you possibly do it in a civil way where you DON'T assume that anyone who has an opinion differing from your own is "damn ignorant and biased"? I'd suggest that it's rather detrimental to your own argument to launch personal attacks on your detractors.

Ignorant is in no way a bad word. All it means is not knowing something because you were never taught it or learned it via experience.

[RCglider Profile]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
Jimmy, I'll be the first to defend your right to state your opinions on a subject, but could you possibly do it in a civil way where you DON'T assume that anyone who has an opinion differing from your own is "damn ignorant and biased"? I'd suggest that it's rather detrimental to your own argument to launch personal attacks on your detractors.


I beg to differ, but this has only been about "the love of two people" since the issue of actual, legal marriage between homosexuals arose. It's obvious that for centuries, "marriage" has been defined solely as being between one man and one woman, whether for love or not. It is only now that "marriage" has been redefined (or attempted to be redefined) to be "between two people." I submit that logically, if we're willing to alter it to be "between two people," then we must also be willing to accept it when it's between any two people (brother and sister? first cousins? Mother and son?) and eventually between "more than two people."

I also take issue with the fact that marriage has or requires "love" to be involved. Of course, we all know that oftentimes, marriage takes place because a man and woman love each other, but "love" is not a legal requirement, nor is it enter into the legal meaning of marriage at all. Strictly speaking, marriage is a contractual relationship between a man and woman that binds them together as a legal entity. It also entitles them to certain privileges, including property rights to the other's property, probate rights to a deceased person's estate, rights to health benefits, tax advantages, etc.

These rights are universal in the U.S.- they don't really vary from state to state. Why should North Carolina, a state that's passed a marriage law defining marriage as being only between a man and woman, be forced to offer marriage benefits to a gay couple who were married in San Francisco? The two positions are in direct competition with each other, so one must prevail. That's why this is an issue of federal jurisdiction - only with federal action can the standard be set.

You are right Folic, and I'll expound further. What this boils down to is a culture war going on in this country. If that's what it is, then consider me the enemy of those who wish to abolish the moral foundation of this country.

To disagree with gay marriage proponents is said to be closed minded and intolerant. Of course, that means they are intolerant themselves, a bit of a contradiction.

Since the concept of judicial activism was conveived and used as a tool of the Left to force their views on others by simply creating laws that don't exist, or wipe out laws they don't like, this gay marriage thing is just one in a long list of abuses of power by our court system. If you don't like a law, just break it.

A favorite rhetorical argument by moral relativists is the "religious right" trying to force their "religious" views on them. Quite to the contrary, it's them that are trying to ram their agenda against the will of the majority. They also like to usurp the so-called 'separation of church and state', which doesn't exist, to further their cause(s).

Marriage is what it is and always has been; between a man and a woman. If proponents of some other form of marriage want to change that, then define what it is. At that point, if someone else wants to once again redefine it, that would be OK right? There are no objective moral values and all truth is relative, so why stop there. I'm ok, you're ok.

BTW, this subject will not go away as it will be a Constitutional issue because of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.

[Jim0322 Profile]

How about we let this thread die? It has been an interesting debate but doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


Jim

[Irish]

[Doug the Unforgiven]

I see nothing's changed here. Same people having the same arguments, with the same people coming in throwing around their same inflammatory language the same way they always do....then claiming their words are nice words. When a person uses a 'nice word' in a constant, derogatory fashion, that word ceases to be a 'nice word', no matter how you try to back-flip to its original meaning.

'Genius' is a kind word, isn't it? But if you constantly use it to berate someone's intelligence, it ceases to be a kind word when used by you.

It's an old trick, really, generally used by children trying to pull fast-ones on their parents, such as when a kid uses the word 'ass' then tries to get out of the disciplinary action by claiming he was talking about a donkey in some nearby field.

It's SO transparent. But only to those adult enough to see it. Now I'll just sit back and enjoy the inevitable flames.

Your ignorant hick,
Doug

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Ignorant is in no way a bad word. All it means is not knowing something because you were never taught it or learned it via experience.

Perhaps it's not "bad" by definition, but certainly it is by implication in this case. Besides, you presume that those who disagree with you are "ignorant," when in fact, they are likely just as informed and intelligent as you.

Intelligence and conviction or belief are most certainly not the same thing, and are really not even related.

[JimmyTango Profile]

ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.

Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

Unaware or uninformed.

No, it means what it means. No hidden agenda at all. It is right there in the dictionary. Everyone is ignorant to many different things. I do not understand the manufacturing process of oil. I am ignorant to it. I do not know what it is like to live in inner city Baltimore, I am ignorant to it.

Not my fault you are apparently ignorant to what ignorant means.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by Folic_Acid
Perhaps it's not "bad" by definition, but certainly it is by implication in this case. Besides, you presume that those who disagree with you are "ignorant," when in fact, they are likely just as informed and intelligent as you.

Intelligence and conviction or belief are most certainly not the same thing, and are really not even related.

look at what i replied to. n I even say 'they might be smart,' which you even quoted. I am speaking of one specific thing, not the entire person.

[Xenius]

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
I see nothing's changed here. Same people having the same arguments, with the same people coming in throwing around their same inflammatory language the same way they always do....then claiming their words are nice words. When a person uses a 'nice word' in a constant, derogatory fashion, that word ceases to be a 'nice word', no matter how you try to back-flip to its original meaning.

'Genius' is a kind word, isn't it? But if you constantly use it to berate someone's intelligence, it ceases to be a kind word when used by you.

It's an old trick, really, generally used by children trying to pull fast-ones on their parents, such as when a kid uses the word 'ass' then tries to get out of the disciplinary action by claiming he was talking about a donkey in some nearby field.

It's SO transparent. But only to those adult enough to see it. Now I'll just sit back and enjoy the inevitable flames.

Your ignorant hick,
Doug

Nice post. This has been addressed before, with even an admin stepping in to tell said parties to cut it out.

[SavageParrot Profile]

That damn dictionary salesman, he gets everywhere doesn't he?

[Ralph Wiggum]

What have these ignorant people not been taught or learned through experience? That Jimmy is always right on controversial social issues?

[RCinator]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.

Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

Unaware or uninformed.

No, it means what it means. No hidden agenda at all. It is right there in the dictionary. Everyone is ignorant to many different things. I do not understand the manufacturing process of oil. I am ignorant to it. I do not know what it is like to live in inner city Baltimore, I am ignorant to it.

Not my fault you are apparently ignorant to what ignorant means.

You're speaking strictly in the denotative sense . . . or maybe you're just ignorant of the connotation of the word.

[JimmyTango Profile]

Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
What have these ignorant people not been taught or learned through experience? That Jimmy is always right on controversial social issues?

yes, why?

[Folic_Acid Profile ICQYIM]

/me apologizes for thread-jacking

Originally posted by JimmyTango
ig·no·rant Pronunciation Key (gnr-nt)
adj.
Lacking education or knowledge.

Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.

Unaware or uninformed.

No, it means what it means. No hidden agenda at all. It is right there in the dictionary. Everyone is ignorant to many different things. I do not understand the manufacturing process of oil. I am ignorant to it. I do not know what it is like to live in inner city Baltimore, I am ignorant to it.

Not my fault you are apparently ignorant to what ignorant means.

Ah - so you DO use the dictionary, but only when it suits you? I guess you like the literal meaning of "ignorance" - that never changes, I guess - but "marriage" on the other hand, that's an evolving definition? Interesting.

Well, you seem to be so busy reading the dictionary that you missed the whole point. You called Ralph Wiggum "damn ignorant and biased" when, in fact, you have no idea if that's true (unless you and Ralph are real-life acquaintances). The problem is that you're stating your opinion as fact. That's a big logical mistake, because it's just an opinion, like everything else here.