User Tag List

First 5131415161725 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 268

  1. #141
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,531

    Smile Friends and Allies

    Quote Originally Posted by LEGERdeMAIN View Post
    We can't afford it, Victor.
    Our economy has been growing non-stop for more than 20 years and right now we are in the middle of a boom set to continue for at least another 20 years. And as we know you must cut back on your military spending, we are going to give you a hand by sharing our military bases with you, gratis.

    Of course we are not silly enough to give you a military base of your own, so in your straitened circumstances we know you will be happy to share our bases with us.

    What are friends and allies for?

  2. #142
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    They simply cannot marry someone of the same sex, because that is not what marriage is.

    Likewise, they cannot marry a dog. They cannot marry a cat. Nor can they marry a horse.

    ...



    As such, your legal reasoning would be opening the road based on the exact same legal reasoning to heterobestial marriage
    Rick Santorum, is that you?

    I find it somewhat hard to believe that anyone could actually compare gay marriage to "heterobestial" marriage with a straight face. You've got to be kidding me. Pure sensationalism and an attempt to dehumanize those who disagree.

    In any event, marriage is a legal construct (in addition to whatever else it may be), and as such, it's entirely reasonable for the legal system to modify the legal definition. Especially as a legal marriage confers legal rights to spouses that may generally not be assigned by other means. *That* is the issue. Frankly, if you wanted to eliminate the idea of a legal "marriage", and rename them all "civil unions", that apply equally to male-female, male-male, and female-female unions, fine by me. I don't care what you *call* it.

    But as long as it's a "marriage" in legal terms, it makes no sense to restrict 2 consenting adults from entering into that union. Not even "marriage" for M-F relationships and "civil union" for M-M and F-F relationships is acceptable. We all know how "separate but equal" worked out.

    What I don't get is how people can, with a straight face, say "I deserve these rights, but you don't". Which is essentially what this argument is about.

    Anyway... Ron Paul. I'll give him credit for at least being honest about some foreign policy situations, but overall? I could never give him my vote. Elimination of the social "security net" sounds good if you're wealthy enough to know you'll never need it, or maybe if you're in the "I'm young, invincible and work hard, that means I'll be rich, so I'll never need it" (hint: you won't be young forever, you're not invincible, and working hard is at best necessary, but never sufficient, for success) group, I can see why this would sound good. But plenty of things that sound good aren't -- and Paul's politics is one.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  3. #143
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazashin View Post
    You make an excellent point.
    He made two good points.

    And a number of bad ones.

  4. #144
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Rick Santorum, is that you?
    No, actually I fucking hate Rick Santorum and am pretty socially liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I find it somewhat hard to believe that anyone could actually compare gay marriage to "heterobestial" marriage with a straight face. You've got to be kidding me. Pure sensationalism and an attempt to dehumanize those who disagree.
    Well then you obviously you have a problem dealing with a real argument, as laid out, and prefer instead to deal only with straw men.

    Congratulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    In any event, marriage is a legal construct (in addition to whatever else it may be), and as such, it's entirely reasonable for the legal system to modify the legal definition.
    And, by your reasoning, entirely reasonable for a state to define it as being between a man and woman, as California's citizens did with prop 8 (before *one* [openly homosexual] judge single-handedly overturned the will of the citizenry by stating that the citizens in fact DID NOT have the right to define the term [as they saw fit]).

    I should also note that, by bringing this up in the first place, you show that you don't really have a strong grasp of what's going on, and didn't really understand what I laid out above (which, I guess, is not surprising, based on the quality of your initial response).

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Especially as a legal marriage confers legal rights to spouses that may generally not be assigned by other means. *That* is the issue.
    Yes, I know this.

    I have been a supporter of completely equal rights via civil unions since I was 10.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Frankly, if you wanted to eliminate the idea of a legal "marriage", and rename them all "civil unions", that apply equally to male-female, male-male, and female-female unions, fine by me. I don't care what you *call* it.
    Or, alternatively, you could let states' citizens decide the definition of marriage, and at the Federal level require that equal rights via civil unions be required.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    But as long as it's a "marriage" in legal terms, it makes no sense to restrict 2 consenting adults from entering into that union. Not even "marriage" for M-F relationships and "civil union" for M-M and F-F relationships is acceptable. We all know how "separate but equal" worked out.
    Why not.

    This is a far different issue than having separate schools.

    If you want to talk about an argument that is a cop-out, this is it.

    It's all tagline, and no substance.

    The two, if examined, are not substantively the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    What I don't get is how people can, with a straight face, say "I deserve these rights, but you don't". Which is essentially what this argument is about.
    No, actually, it's not.

    And you, obviously, as has already been noted, have a very weak grasp of the legal reasoning.

    Try reading what I said again without allowing your preconceived beliefs to blind your thinking.

  5. #145
    Feline Member kelric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INtP
    Posts
    2,169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    This is a far different issue than having separate schools.
    While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I (obviously) disagree. The issue is that government's actions, which should provide equality under the law for all people, are not doing so in this case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    And you, obviously, as has already been noted, have a very weak grasp of the legal reasoning.

    Try reading what I said again without allowing your preconceived beliefs to blind your thinking.
    Ah, the sweet stench of patronizing pseudo-intellectualism. I disagree with you. Don't equate this with "blinded thinking". Anyway, I've said my bit.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #146
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, I (obviously) disagree. The issue is that government's actions, which should provide equality under the law for all people, are not doing so in this case.
    Unfortunately, you once again demonstrate your inability to grasp the core of the issue, as well as the *actual* arguments of the other side.

    No one is being denied equality under the law, as, if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, homosexuals still have the exact same right as heterosexuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    I disagree with you. Don't equate this with "blinded thinking".
    I don't equate your disagreeing with me for "blinded thinking".

    I equate your piss-poor understanding of the facts and legal reasoning, as well as your inability to comprehend what I originally wrote, with your blinded thinking.

    Quote Originally Posted by kelric View Post
    Anyway, I've said my bit.
    Yes, scurry off.

    You're out of your league here.

  7. #147
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Unfortunately, you once again demonstrate your inability to grasp the core of the issue, as well as the *actual* arguments of the other side. No one is being denied equality under the law, as, if marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, homosexuals still have the exact same right as heterosexuals.
    This depends entirely on how you frame the argument. Try framing the argument this way:

    Heterosexuals are allowed to marry adults they are sexually attracted to.
    Homosexuals are not allowed to marry adults they are sexually attracted to.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  8. #148
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    This depends entirely on how you frame the argument. Try framing the argument this way:

    Heterosexuals are allowed to marry adults they are sexually attracted to.
    Homosexuals are not allowed to marry adults they are sexually attracted to.
    Yes, I understand this.

    But there's no such thing as a right for adults to marry someone they're sexually attracted to.

    And, as such, that reasoning won't hold up (not even close) in a court of law.

  9. #149
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Yes, I understand this.

    Unfortunately, that won't hold up (not even close) in a court of law.
    That's why people are trying to change the law.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #150
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    That's why people are trying to change the law.
    I'm not sure whether you're talking about legislative or judicial changes here...

    Legislatively: I believe each state should be able to decide on their definition of marriage. For the most part, I think this will lead to many, but not all, states eventually adopting definitions that allow gay marriage.

    Judicially, however: You must use solid legal reasoning to do so. And that is not solid legal reasoning (not even close).

Similar Threads

  1. [MBTItm] NF, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 08-27-2017, 05:28 PM
  2. [SJ] SJ, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-04-2017, 06:25 PM
  3. [SP] SP, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 05-15-2017, 03:39 AM
  4. Anyone who thinks Ron Paul Shouldn't be President is completly stupid or ignorant...
    By Munchies in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: 01-13-2012, 01:47 PM
  5. [NT] NT, How Are You NOT Like Your Type Description?
    By SquirrelTao in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 05:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO