Constitutional Ammendment on Gay Marriage - Will We Embarass Ourselves?

[Kharum]

Originally posted by Lokrian
I -lived- this perfection you are assuming divorce and broken families have become. Your assumptions are wrong.

Read for comprehension! Jesus Christ. I even used the word "imperfect" do describe the institution of marriage. To say that it is largely a successful institution is not to say that it works for everybody, or that everyone can make it work or that married people won't for whatever reasons fuck up their relationships.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
To repeat, saying something mean and without much context makes you hard to understand.

Hardly. "Religous wrong" and "welfare brood mare" are not difficult to understand terms. You just don't like them.

Originally posted by Lokrian
As for the labelling problem, that's what people do.

Sometimes labels are appropriate. You, however, rely on them exclusively such that you are unable to deal with a situation where a label does not apply.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I'm not going to get to feeling guilty because you have a tendency to spit rude epithets though.

Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. Your inability to face that is your own failing, not mine.

Welfare brood mares deserve nothing but derision and there is nothing wrong with heaping on such legitimate descriptors.

You don't have any problem speaking ill of groups you dislike. I dislike groups who steal from hard working Americans by defrauding government handout programs.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I'm no more prone to labelling than anyone. You and Eorick both have a hard time talking about anything without throwing mud around though.

You are possibly the most prone to labelling of anyone on the forum. Frequently, your first response is a label rather than to simply stay on topic.

As for your accusation about throwing mud, perhaps you should look at your own hate mongering. Worry not about the speck in thy neighbors eye when thou hast a plank in thine own.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I have seen the damage broken families cause first hand.

Who hasn't?

Originally posted by Lokrian
I do not believe the insitution of marriage and family is disposable.

Who does?

Originally posted by Lokrian
Nothing is perfect, but I think things could be done to make it better.

Agreed. How about step 1 is not using it as a tool of hate?

If you want to help marriage, make it illegal to get married more than once every 10 years. That would put a damper on the mockery celebrities make of marriage.

Originally posted by Lokrian
I think trying to apply it to gay couples does further damage to it through added confusion.

What confusion? When two people love each other and want to spend their lives together they get married. How is that confusing?

If you really cared about society, you would embrace the stabilizing effect marriage has as a benefit.

Originally posted by Lokrian
If you don't have anything constructive to say about that, then the rest of this mess is really beside the point.

What kind of horseshit statement is that?

If we don't agree with you everything is beside the point? Pathetic.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
If we don't agree with you everything is beside the point? Pathetic.

No, the name calling makes the conversation beside the point. Ditto for the repeat performance of "read for comprehension" by Eorick.

There is no place in a meaningful discussion for name calling, and I have no idea where you learned anything different, but anything I have ever read or heard about debate or even just plain public speaking refutes your claims to the contrary. My "label" of you, Aristotle, as a libertarian, while perhaps wrong, was no insult. You and Eorick rely on the tactic of name calling, along with ignoring my actual concerns, to the exclusion of anything else.

On the plus side, you win, right?

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
No, the name calling makes the conversation beside the point. Ditto for the repeat performance of "read for comprehension" by Eorick.

There is no place in a meaningful discussion for name calling, and I have no idea where you learned anything different, but anything I have ever read or heard about debate or even just plain public speaking refutes your claims to the contrary. My "label" of you, Aristotle, as a libertarian, while perhaps wrong, was no insult. You and Eorick rely on the tactic of name calling, along with ignoring my actual concerns, to the exclusion of anything else.

Nice tangent here.

So much for the substantive argument. You don't like people's word choice so you twist and convolute it into "insult."

When I say "religious wrong" I am not insulting you. When I refer to "welfare brood mares" I am not insulting you.

Is this some kind of dodge? You are no longer able to stay on topic so you have to drift off into this absurd tangent?

Grouping me with Eorick as if we are some kind of "team" is also a loathsome, cheap, erroneous tactic.

I notice you love to use as an argument "everything I have ever read or heard." I have seen you do this multiple times lately. You might think that sounds like evidence or a citation, but it is neither. All you are really saying is "I think ____" because "everything I read or heard" is vague to the point of meaninglessness.

I haven't called you any names in any of these threads and I find it ridiculous that you have ruined multiple discussions now because *YOU* insist on making everything personal.

Furthermore, when Eorick says "read for comprehension" do you ever stop to think that maybe you actually NEED to read more carefully? Why do you assume it is an insult? Maybe he's just calling a spade a spade. Perhaps you just need to focus more on reading what people write instead of dreaming up straw men and irrelevant tangets. If someone had a huge mole on their nose with hairs growing out of it, and someone said "wow, that old lady has a mole on her nose with hairs growing out of it!" that's just telling the truth. That isn't an insult.

Don't be surprised if your posts start getting deleted if you continue to go OFF TOPIC by obsessing over your evaluation of other people and their debate methods.

Stay on the issue or don't post.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Lokrian
Here, you threw out the phrase "religious wrong" in the middle of this conversation and it certainly came across to me as a slap at religion.

For the sake of clarification:

I was assuming that you know there are many religious political groups and individuals who call themselves a part of the "Religious Right." They use that term to imply that they are right, or correct, as well as "on the right" politically.

Any people who are so arrogant that they call themselves that deserve to be called the "religious wrong" when they are so incredibly WRONG on issues like stem cell research and virtually every gay issue. If they can call themselves "the religious right" when they think they are right, it is certainly fair to call them the "religious wrong" when I feel they are wrong.

I figured I would clarify that in case you just did not know what the Religious Right was. I assume anyone participating in a political discussion is aware of such major political forces. Perhaps that is an inappropriate assumption.

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle

Don't be surprised if your posts start getting deleted if you continue to go OFF TOPIC by obsessing over your evaluation of other people and their debate methods.

Stay on the issue or don't post.

Your use of insult and personal attack is inexcuseable here, and threats to ban me (again) for pointing out that you do it do not make me any more tempted to try to speak to anything except your continued blatant abuse and cowardice to start up insults and then threaten to censor someone.

If my tactics are so plainly wrong headed, you should be able to leave them there as a sign to all how wrong headed I am. I am pretty sure you want to get rid of my posts for reasons other than that I am so terribly wrong headed.

I have on several occasions made my point here, including examples that neither you nor Eorick have even bothered to touch. If you're too full of yourself to address the disaster that the modern unenforeceable marriage contract has made of the american family, that is your problem, not mine. Maybe you'd understand better why 60+% of Americans agree with the "religious wrong" on this issue if you sucked your head out of whatever twilight zone you have it in, thinking slinging random insults is perfectly ok but people pointing out that you do it is not.

What do you think would happen to the insurance industry, or the construction industry, or the transportation industry, if you made their fundamental contracts unenforceable? What happens then if, after than, you just throw all industries together under one set of rules, many of which have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and pretend like it's "only fair"?

No, I have made my point repeatedly and you and Eorick have responded by deconstrcuting paragraphs, taking things out of context, refusing to answer concerns, and now finally threatening to remove my posts.

Have at it. Since you, Ari, are likely to be the only person to ever read this, I will tell you flat out, yours is the ONLY of -multiple- boards on political and social commentary where anyone has ever even so much as warned me to stop posting. If I want serious discussion on these matters, there are other places to go. But hurling insults, then threatening to remove replies to YOUR insults???

You're an amazeingly self-deluded individual.