Same-sex marriage and politics. What say you?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Actually, you can't use "common sense," because "common sense" proves the opposite:

 

Men have weewees, women have hoohoos.

 

Weewees fit inside hoohoos perfectly, a nice match.

Hoohoos can't work well with each other, there needs to be something that gets up inside. They have to use or fashion a rudimentary object to be a fake weewee to stick up in the hoohoo.

Weewees don't work well with each other, 'cause they just bang into each other like lightsabers. They have to stick the weewee in the "out"-hole for it to work, and that's just icky.

 

You know, "common" sense isn't so common.

 

-3nigma

 

After such a mature response like that, I guess there's no point in trying to explain anything

[gwprod12]

I was flabbergasted at how much effort went into such a ridiculous argument.

 

Hate knows no bounds, it seems

[Alessandro17]

You know, "common" sense isn't so common.

 

Bonobo show more common sense than you:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo#Sexual_social_behavior

 

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/bonobo/bonobo.htm

[kramer2k]

Yay...

The Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster knows no difference between noodle or rotini, we're all pasta

[Azurael]

This thread is a good explanation for why religion should have nothing to do with the running of a country.

 

Sadly, the US has enshrined in it's constitution the separation of religion and state, yet religious nutters like Bush are somehow allowed to inflict their beliefs on the freedoms of others.

[articquad]

This thread is a good explanation for why religion should have nothing to do with the running of a country.

 

Sadly, the US has enshrined in it's constitution the separation of religion and state, yet religious nutters like Bush are somehow allowed to inflict their beliefs on the freedoms of others.

 

I completely agree with you!

 

Just because a religion conflicts with it doesn't mean LAWS should. Separation of church and state! =)

[InorganicMatter]

I take a solid Libertarian view: {censored} should not receive any special perks from the government; likewise, neither should straight couples. I say abolish the whole stupid "marriage" system and let people figure it out themselves. No special tax incentives, no preferential medical treatment, none of that. Everyone is a person, every person is treated the same, no person gets special perks based on their sexual orientation. Straight couple can do their straight thing through the church if they so choose, and {censored} can do the same.

 

Really, it's not complicated, and everyone wins.

[gwprod12]

Sounds good to me.

[3nigma]

Regardless of what was said in this old thread, the poll results prove that the vast majority of people in this forum are a tolerant bunch (thus the very few ones who say that homosexuality is filth are a tiny minority).

One third of the voters said "no." One third. Tiny minority? I think this sufficiently discredits you as a reliable source of credible contribution to this conversation.

After such a mature response like that, I guess there's no point in trying to explain anything

I was not trying to sincerely make that as an argument, I was doing the opposite. I was pointing out the fact that saying "common sense" is the reason not to let people marry children or animals is totally unsubstantiated and ignorant.

 

If you are going to use that argument, then you may as well say that even homosexuality goes against "common sense," because it literally runs counter to literal, physical, anatomical biology itself. I am not proposing this as an argument against homosexuality, only saying that this is the equivalent argument to the poster's argument that people would not marry underaged children and animals. It is insufficient.

 

Ergo, my comment of: "Common" sense doesn't appear to be so common.

 

Moreover, I find that the lack of understanding of such a simple post is indicative of the comprehension level of my readers. It is so sad that this forum lacks so much fruitful discussion, and is simply ignorance begetting ignorance.

I was flabbergasted at how much effort went into such a ridiculous argument.

 

Hate knows no bounds, it seems

Yes, a ridiculous argument, that was my point, as said above. Comprehension is lost on this reader, too.

 

I have no hate whatsoever for homosexual people, I have a half dozen friends that are openly {censored}.

 

However, there are many on this forum that hate religion or Christianity in particular. Introspection would be meritable, here.

 

There can be no constructive dialogue with people so prejudiced and ignorant. It's a shame really, because it would have been nice to meet someone who can actually hold their ground in a debate.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

Please see Argumentation Guidelines Sticky.

[Alessandro17]

One third of the voters said "no." One third. Tiny minority? I think this sufficiently discredits you as a reliable source of credible contribution to this conversation

 

Can you read at all?

 

I said: "the very few ones who say that homosexuality is filth are a tiny minority", not "the ones who disagree with {censored} marriage are a tiny minority". Those are indeed 30.28%, which in any case is less than one third.

[four!]

Let them (Homosexuals) do what they want. They are people too. If they want to marry one another let them make that decision for themselves.

[3nigma]

I said: "the very few ones who say that homosexuality is filth are a tiny minority", not "the ones who disagree with {censored} marriage are a tiny minority".

Oh Alessandro, my mistake. I made a rebuttal to what you intended to mean, rather than what you textually said. I had thought you said:

Regardless of what was said in this old thread, the poll results prove that the vast majority of people in this forum are a tolerant bunch (thus the very few ones who say that homosexuality is filth are a tiny minority). [3nigma's emphasis in formatting]

Oh, wait- you DID say that. You began with the preposition that "the poll results prove" that people here are tolerant, and "thus" (therefore, as a result) the dissenters are a "tiny minority," basing your conclusion off of your preposition.

 

Huh.

 

Unless, of course, that's not what you MEANT to say. In which case, you have some wiggle room. Otherwise, the text says what it says. You're the one that wrote it.

Those are indeed 30.28%, which in any case is less than one third.

You're right. 30.28% is, in fact, a whopping 2.72% LESS than an authentic "one third."

 

I concede. You win.

Please see Argumentation Guidelines Sticky.

All I did was highlight that I made a perfectly legitimate post, and you all totally misunderstood it, and then misrepresented it. If that is uncomfortable for you to be in the spotlight when you make a mistake, then next time be slow to speak and quick to listen. You will reap the rewards of more thoughtful contemplation, and have less foot-in-mouth.

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

Regardless of what was said in this old thread, the poll results prove that the vast majority of people in this forum are a tolerant bunch (thus the very few ones who say that homosexuality is filth are a tiny minority).

 

Oh, wait- you DID say that. You began with the preposition that "the poll results prove" that people here are tolerant, and "thus" (therefore, as a result) the dissenters are a "tiny minority," basing your conclusion off of your preposition.

 

Huh.

 

Unless, of course, that's not what you MEANT to say. In which case, you have some wiggle room. Otherwise, the text says what it says. You're the one that wrote it.

 

OK, that "thus" wasn't totally correct (the one wasn't necessarily a consequence of the other).

 

However better than childish talk like:

 

Men have weewees, women have hoohoos.

 

Weewees fit inside hoohoos perfectly, a nice match.

Hoohoos can't work well with each other, there needs to be something that gets up inside. They have to use or fashion a rudimentary object to be a fake weewee to stick up in the hoohoo.

Weewees don't work well with each other, 'cause they just bang into each other like lightsabers. They have to stick the weewee in the "out"-hole for it to work, and that's just icky.

 

As if that nonsense were all that mattered in relationships between human beings.

[Azurael]

What I don't understand is why the anti-{censored} marriage people feel they have a right to tell {censored} people who want to get married that they can't.

 

Majority rule is not designed to take away the rights of those who aren't harming others. It's designed to ensure crackpots like Hitler don't get into power based on the theory that large numbers of people are unlikely to be mislead (i.e. become sheep) into believing crazy ideas like the thought that two consenting individuals shouldn't be allowed to marry eachother. I'm not talking about religion here. Religions are free to do whatever they want. If X church doesn't want free marriage, then that's their choice, but it shouldn't be state-sanctioned.

 

People who oppose individuals doing something that is utterly harmless to others (regardless of whether or not you believe it to be sin or whatever, it's not your problem, OK?) or just being who they are happen to be just one step from totalitarianism. I don't care if that's a measurable percentage of the population. They're still crackpots. Frankly, the fact that they are a large proportion of the population in the US tells you how backward the US is in some places - I bet that kind of person has a shotgun attached to their truck and doesn't like the fact that that 'coloured' fellow has a white-collar job - when you were a young man, that would never have been allowed, right? Get over it, f**k-tard. (Then again, it's not fair to tar all US citizens with the same brush - the US isn't really like one country - It's actually lots of countries in a constant state of chaos trying to appear to the rest of the world as a single entity. The 'sane' Northern states really need to find a way to do away with the South )

[3nigma]

However better than childish talk like:...

As if that nonsense were all that mattered in relationships between human beings.

I was not trying to sincerely make that as an argument, I was doing the opposite. I was pointing out the fact that saying "common sense" is the reason not to let people marry children or animals is totally unsubstantiated and ignorant.

 

If you are going to use that argument, then you may as well say that even homosexuality goes against "common sense," because it literally runs counter to literal, physical, anatomical biology itself. I am not proposing this as an argument against homosexuality, only saying that this is the equivalent argument to the poster's argument that people would not marry underaged children and animals. It is insufficient.

 

Moreover, I find that the lack of understanding of such a simple post is indicative of the comprehension level of my readers. It is so sad that this forum lacks so much fruitful discussion, and is simply ignorance begetting ignorance.Yes, a ridiculous argument, that was my point, as said above. Comprehension is lost on this reader, too.

Alessandro, please. Did you even READ this conversation before posting? I have already addressed the fact that the post was deliberately made in a jocular tone, to make a point.

 

I chalk that up to yet another person further elevating my entire point of ignorance begetting ignorance.

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

Moreover, I find that the lack of understanding of such a simple post is indicative of the comprehension level of my readers. It is so sad that this forum lacks so much fruitful discussion, and is simply ignorance begetting ignorance.Yes, a ridiculous argument, that was my point, as said above. Comprehension is lost on this reader, too.

 

 

Nobody seemed to understand your "sense of humor" (see for instance posts # 276, 277)

So is it possible at all that the problem is with your communication skills, rather than "the comprehension level of your readers"?

 

Besides, you didn't exactly give the impression of being here for a "fruitful discussion" or "constructive dialogue", with remarks like:

 

One third of the voters said "no." One third. Tiny minority? I think this sufficiently discredits you as a reliable source of credible contribution to this conversation.

 

(splitting hairs over the meaning of words)

 

and your overall sarcasm. Unless you are the only genius here and everybody else is an idiot (and that seems what you are suggesting)

[3nigma]

Unless you are the only genius here and everybody else is an idiot

Besides, you didn't exactly give the impression of being here for a "fruitful discussion" or "constructive dialogue", with remarks like:

(splitting hairs over the meaning of words)

I didn't split hairs over the meaning of words, I simply pointed out that you actually DID say something that you insisted that you DID NOT say. I was correct, because you yourself clarified what you meant. I pointed out the words, you're the one that wrote them.

Nobody seemed to understand your "sense of humor" (see for instance posts # 276, 277)

So is it possible at all that the problem is with your communication skills, rather than "the comprehension level of your readers"?

To be fair, I think you are absolutely right.

 

I came here to a place where people discuss topics like politics and religion, and I expected to be in dialogue with a certain level of discussion. Therefore, I do indeed carry out the discussion on a certain level, but you are right in that nobody is up at the level that I am expecting people to be at. Instead, I am increasingly having to "talk-down" to people in order to get down to the level of conversation that this forum carries itself at.

 

Sad, but true.

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

I came here to a place where people discuss topics like politics and religion, and I expected to be in dialogue with a certain level of discussion. Therefore, I do indeed carry out the discussion on a certain level, but you are right in that nobody is up at the level that I am expecting people to be at. Instead, I am increasingly having to "talk-down" to people in order to get down to the level of conversation that this forum carries itself at.

 

You are an incredibly arrogant person, on a par only with robotskip and a few more.

Arrogance is never a sign of real intelligence or maturity. It is typical of spoiled teens.

[Hagar]

I should have looked in on this topic earlier.. mind if I cook my christmas dinner on your flames, folks?

[Alessandro17]

I should have looked in on this topic earlier.. mind if I cook my christmas dinner on your flames, folks?

 

Sorry Hagar, but sometimes you can take only so much.

[mifki]

Just a question Alessandro17, why did you have to bump this thread?

[Alessandro17]

Just a question Alessandro17, why did you have to bump this thread?

 

Because I was very keen to say something, namely that the vast majority of people in this forum are a tolerant bunch.

I still believe it is true.

[mifki]

Thats the world we live in, most people are tolerant, some aren't. I for one disagree with {censored} "marriage", civil union which gives the same rights as marriage is fine though, just dont want it being called marriage. If people will start to complain about what its called then maybe they dont really need to get married, as they should be happy that they receive the same rights as married couples. Their union is recognised by the state as a normal couples is. thats just my opinion anyways

[Alessandro17]

Thats the world we live in, most people are tolerant, some aren't. I for one disagree with {censored} "marriage", civil union which gives the same rights as marriage is fine though, just dont want it being called marriage. If people will start to complain about what its called then maybe they dont really need to get married, as they should be happy that they receive the same rights as married couples. Their union is recognised by the state as a normal couples is. thats just my opinion anyways

 

I agree. Italian {censored} people would be more than happy with that.