Which statement about gay rights do you agree with more.

[peewee's lovechild]

Just because you are illiterate doesn't mean that I am spewing lunacy.

Okay.

[peewee's lovechild]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bull .

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

[Summers]

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bull .

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

I should've known it was already addressed in one of the pages I didn't read.

[Blake]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

[peewee's lovechild]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bull .

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

I was close enough.

"Extra right".

That's the epitome of stupidity.

[Summers]

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

You know, I asked my question sincerely and respectfully. I read the options very carefully and you and I happen to disagree on the definition of "equality under the law".

[Blake]

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bull .

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

I am quite able to see exactly how much of an idiot you are.

This thread is really ridiculous to start with. The poll is two very minor points of the big issue.

Again, the only reason it got started was because B2B got butthurt when I called him out for claiming Black slavery = sexuals discrimination.

[Blake]

I was close enough.

"Extra right".

That's the epitome of stupidity.

No....I'd say trying to make arguments while being illiterate is the epitome of stupidity.

[BacktoBasics]

It's a shame only 30% understand both the question and basic concepts. , I've already counted one drunk and two chicks that said as much.

I also never requested the poll that you started. I sarcastically said to take your poll and start a new thread with it.

Your level of fail continues to amaze me. If you're not careful, you might reach Wild Cobra levels of fail.

How much does it suck to know that even though you have 70% picking what you want them to pick, that you are still getting brutally owned?

You, BacktoBasics, are an idiot.

I don't feel like you've owned me one bit so it doesn't "feel" like anything. You just blabber on. Thats it. There is very little basis for a real debate with you. You can't own somebody if you are completely void of the ability to debate probably.

What exactly are you "owning" me in? The members don't agree with you over me. Your facts aren't better than mine (what little you offered). You ranted longer than I did. Good for you.

I'm not the only person in this thread that has questioned your ability to make sense. Some have even suggested that you don't even know yourself what you're arguing for.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[Blake]

You know, I asked my question sincerely and respectfully. I read the options very carefully and you and I happen to disagree on the definition of "equality under the law".

I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

[BacktoBasics]

I am quite able to see exactly how much of an idiot you are.

This thread is really ridiculous to start with. The poll is two very minor points of the big issue.

Again, the only reason it got started was because B2B got butthurt when I called him out for claiming Black slavery = sexuals discrimination.

I got butthurt?

WTF?

I cleared up my statement in a rational manor within seconds. You're the one who got butthurt and went on a rant for 3-4 pages before realizing that I was in agreement with you.

Make a ing point and back it up with a reasonable amount of information. At this point 90% of your argument consists calling people stupid and illiterate. At least some of us have attempted to make decent debate out of this.

I know I know I used blue font and big letters....how long ago was that? Have I not attempted to be civil and reasonable since then?

You just do what you do man. You're the kid that can keep his hand out from underneath the mower no matter how many warnings you get.

How many people have to disagree with you before you realized that you're probably wrong?

[Blake]

I don't feel like you've owned me one bit so it doesn't "feel" like anything. You just blabber on. Thats it. There is very little basis for a real debate with you. You can't own somebody if you are completely void of the ability to debate probably.

Well good. Then I guess you can sleep well tonight in your own ignorance.

What exactly are you "owning" me in? The members don't agree with you over me. Your facts aren't better than mine (what little you offered). You ranted longer than I did. Good for you.

Yes, my facts are better than yours (what little you actually read and comprehended).

I'm not the only person in this thread that has questioned your ability to make sense. Some have even suggested that you don't even know yourself what you're arguing for.

Whatever makes you feel better.

I'm not the one asking for other's opinions to help me feel better about myself.

Whatever helps you try to overcome your insecurities.

[Summers]

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.

[BacktoBasics]

Yes, my facts are better than yours (what little you actually read and comprehended).

Your two blurbs were awesome. Especially the second one that agrees with the notion of sexuality being hereditary. Your facts(two) blew my mind.

[BacktoBasics]

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.

Its his only response. He has nothing to actually debate or offer up in support of his views(whatever they are).

You see what we've been dealing with all day.

[Blake]

I got butthurt?

WTF?

I cleared up my statement in a rational manor within seconds. You're the one who got butthurt and went on a rant for 3-4 pages before realizing that I was in agreement with you.

really? Is that why you went with the barrage of curse words and the blue 100 sized font?

Make a ing point and back it up with a reasonable amount of information. At this point 90% of your argument consists calling people stupid and illiterate. At least some of us have attempted to make decent debate out of this.

Well you have avoided most of my posts when I have debunked yours so if you still think you are 'winning' then I can only assume that you are illiterate.

I know I know I used blue font and big letters....how long ago was that? Have I not attempted to be civil and reasonable since then?

This is your idea of civil and reasonable?

No wonder you don't get it.

You just do what you do man. You're the kid that can keep his hand out from underneath the mower no matter how many warnings you get.

It doesn't matter because you can't figure out how to turn on the mower....... no matter how many times I say to simply turn the key to "ON"

How many people have to disagree with you before you realized that you're probably wrong?

You mean like the poster that admitted he was drunk?

Depends on the quality of people........not the quan y. You are not exactly high on my list of being a quality source of scientific information and/or moral codes.

Again, it's no wonder you can't understand simple concepts.

[BacktoBasics]

really? Is that why you went with the barrage of curse words and the blue 100 sized font?

I went on the blue text and large font response because after 3 ing pages you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with you.

[Blake]

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.

You specifically stated that you think I am "anti-gay". If that's the case, you obviously didn't get the point of the thread.

Now you can keep being lazy and upset about it, or you can go back and read my explanations.........along with where I have said more than once that "I am not anti-gay"

[samikeyp]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make you or them wrong.

We have a big problem with that in our country. Some people are so convinced that they are right or that their way is the only way that they look down their noses and simply can't see how anyone can think differently and therefore automatically believe that the other person has to be wrong. They can't see it because they choose not too.

[Blake]

I went on the blue text and large font response because after 3 ing pages you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with you.

I know. It was a classic meltdown.

And after 3 pages you still weakly tried to justify why you said black slaves = sexuals.

[Blake]

Just because someone disagrees with you or them doesn't make you wrong.

It doesn't make them right either.

[samikeyp]

[QUOTE=Blake;3213726]

Just because someone disagrees with you or them doesn't make you wrong.

It doesn't make them right either.

You are correct, that works both ways.

Just because you Blake, don't share the same opinion as others here on this subject doesn't make you wrong. You just have a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with Summers having a different opinion than you do.

[dimsah]

!! Blake is stating that sexuals are requesting an extension to the current law which allows a man to marry a woman to include sexual marriage. Since it's currently not law that sexuals can marry, then a change to the existing law would be required hence the "extra" part he's alluding to.


Semantic dispute:

A disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue.



How did this thread get this far along? I don't think anyone is even trying to understand the opposition at this point.

[CuckingFunt]

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

I think, in all honesty, most of the people in this thread get this point. Even those with whom I don't agree.

The problem I have with that point is that it is impossible to look at a piece of policy, especially policy which I see as actively discriminatory and which has a very real effect on my life, and its semantics as two separate things. Yes, it's true that every adult, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, currently has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (though, I'm not sure where that leaves intersexed individuals, since they don't have a legally defined "opposite"). That is fact. Everyone has acknowledged that is fact. However, the point that I've countered is that this technicality has very specific implications and that, if you take gender out of the equation, if you take semantics out of the equation, it is very clear how different and discriminatory the current laws are.

No one is arguing against the semantics of your argument, we're merely arguing that those semantics aren't good enough. It is a technical equality being used to mask a lived inequality. As much as you may argue that my point, or anyone else's, is completely unrelated to yours, they are very much connected.

Furthermore, there are several people who have accurately countered your argument based on the same technicalities and semantics on which you are so reliant. If gay marriage laws were passed, all adults, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, would have the legal ability to marry any other adult. You have yet to acknowledge, let alone refute, this point.

[Summers]

!! Blake is stating that sexuals are requesting an extension to the current law which allows a man to marry a woman to include sexual marriage. Since it's currently not law that sexuals can marry, then a change to the existing law would be required hence the "extra" part he's alluding to.


Semantic dispute:

A disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue.



How did this thread get this far along? I don't think anyone is even trying to understand the opposition at this point.

We disagree on what the semantic argument is about. Blake thinks we don't understand the difference between "equality" and "extension of law". Some of us are arguing that gays already do have the right to marry (because they're consenting adults, etc) and they're being discriminated against.