Reply With Quote
lnGrrr is a good man. He chooses his spots well, and realizes that some of his evidence is debatable. Good man.
Honestly, I haven't paid that close attention; I'm not familiar with the ruling except that I understood it only found 1 of the DOMA sections (Section 3) uncons utional. But, I don't even know what that means.
And, I somewhat disagree with your statement advocating eliminating marriage entirely as anything but a religious/personal function.
People are going to disagree and relationships break down. I think marriage -- at least the dissolution of marriage -- belongs in contract law.
Enforcing verbal contracts and that whole -- "'til death do you part" -- nonsense would take on a whole new meaning.
lnGrrr is a good man. He chooses his spots well, and realizes that some of his evidence is debatable. Good man.
Lol, wrong. He just buttered you up, by starting with, LNGRRrrr you're a nice guy and all but........"
You couldn't take anything i said objectively, specially with bringing in ty arguments from the beginning, and accusing me of supoorting banning gay marriage. You're whole argument was emotional, and baseless, and your poll with bias was .
Dude, you lost when you brought up that ty poll.
I'm not like zosa, i don't pretend to like you or take your seriously. I can't give each fool a chance of redemption, i'd never have time to get anything else done.
exhibit a
except I'm not pretending.
Yup, you sure are a model of restraint and civility on these boards.
@z0sa:
Everything's a one way street with iggy. He craves respect but gives away none. It is probably inconceivable to him that your hat tip to LNGR was sincere.
I've gathered as much; believe it or not, ig has made a semi-common habit of attempting to troll me, by name. Starting threads about me and stuff.
I don't think Ig intentionally trolls; I just think he has no idea how to debate things without resorting to logical fallacies and emotive outbursts. He's like that one guy at the party that tries to tell a joke, but he's intrinsically unfunny; he doesn't get why his jokes keep falling flat precisely because of his lack of humor.
I remember;pound sand !
your attempts at doing the same thing your whining about, your lame attempts to play forum nanny and come off as as an impartial observer.
What's funny is that i haven't demanded i get treated with respect in this thread or another. It's Winehole who has been the one who got his rep for whining about the lack of civility on these boards. I don't give a . I look at the people who log on here and have concluded long ago that there's no point in demanding such things.
Infact, on this very same thread I had a civilized debate with manny and jekka, and I stated my arguments and position concerning gay adoption. It wasn't until Spurminator and LNGRRrrr came here and started throwing around strawman to argue with me. For one, I'm against banning gay adoption, yet LNGGRRR and Spurminator made snarky comments about me as if i wanted to ban gay adoption. So i see two possibilities here;
These idiots either didn't read my argument and decided to condescend from the get go, or they intentionally argued strawmen because they're bags.
And about zosa, I can agree with the guy and still think he's a giant asskissing . He's done it before, and he has quite the reputation around here for being such. I have real life friends, and don't desire to make some on the internet. I can see why he would try to befriend an idiot like LNGRRrrr. And i don't blame him for it, he has none in real life or on the internets.
But, there's nothing wrong with that, with friends like Zosa and Winehole, why does LNGrrr bother to purchase toiletpaper?
I , like everyone else. Only in your mind does that make me a nanny.I remember;
your attempts at doing the same thing your whining about, your lame attempts to play forum nanny and come off as as an impartial observer.
Also, I never claimed to be impartial. I don't know where you get that. That's another strawman.
Ig, could you actually point out to me where in this thread I slammed you for wanting to ban gay marriage? I don't recall doing so. In fact, a few pages ago I said that if you think gay marriage is gross, but you don't want to ban it, then I'm fine with that. Even gave you a thumbs up.
Perhaps you're mistaken? I did berate CC earlier, but only because he admitted his stance was irrational but still holds it.
The original argument was not about gay adoption, but gay marriage.
Frankly, if you think gay adoption/marriage/sex/whatever is "nasty" or "icky" or "produces cooties", I don't care as long if you're not for laws preventing that sort of thing.
My argument was about the study all along, and perceived differences in the importance of it. You guys think it's biased and discount the evidence, I do not. As I said upthread, no way to know for sure unless this research is duplicated by peers in the scientific community.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
