fefifofob wrote:

gopherus wrote:

My argument is that you have argued under false pretenses. You pretend to be concerned about promiscuity but you are really concerned about homosexuality.


You have no real idea what my concerns are. You are misrepresenting them with homophobia and bigotry to dismiss my very real concerns. This is called an ad hominem argument. It's purpose is to attack the person rather than the argument.

gopherus wrote:

I believe that you fear gay marriage because if married homosexual males bring their level of promiscuity in line with other married males your argument fails and you have to come out of the closet.
If I grant you the promiscuity argument (I don't intend to, but we can set up a hypothetical situation) do your propose to grant the right to marriage to lesbians?


Actually, the thought has occurred to me that it might be a good idea to restrict marriages for everyone. It's obvious to me that all lot of people don't understand what it means. But the topic on the table right now is same sex marriage, so that's what I'm talking about. Same sex marriage applies to both lesbians and gays. If I was convinced that the net gain to society from gay marriage was positive because of the lesbians, I would be for it.

gopherus wrote:

I've made my arguments for gay marriage hundreds of posts ago, you can go back and look at them.
When you wish to come to the table with an argument you are welcome to do so.


You want me to search through hundreds of your old posts to figure out what your arguments are? I've been begging for them for the last thirty or so of my posts. If you can't reiterate your arguments as they apply to this thread at this time, then it doesn't seem you have very much interest in letting me know what they are. They must not be very important to you.


I could say that if you aren't willing to search for some of my previous posts so that you can argue against them in a logical manner that this issue must not be very important to you. Of course to do that with a straight face I'd have to be a jerk who assumes you have nothing but time or assume you are so stupid you are unemployable, but I'll do neither.
I'm pasting a post I made in response to Wren. It is not my best work, but is relatively comprehensive (though off-the-cuff).
Here it is:
I disagree with you only in the implied guarantee and what being homosexual is like. Recent data suggests that being homosexual is somewhat like being a person of color or male or female. We clearly have a group that is different from others by some biological nature that they are, at least to some extent, born with. They have become the last accepted (by the majority) target of discrimination. I do believe that there are civil rights implications here. There are also other constitutional implications, though no explicit guarantees (which there are very few of relative to the body of law based on the constitution).
First we have the issue of defining marriage. The establishment clause of the 1st amendment leads me to believe that we can't define marriage based on the belief of a particular religion. Given the diversity of beliefs on religion (from the acceptance of homosexual marriage to the demand of polygamy this is probably for the best). People know this, that's why we need an amendment to define marriage.
Second we have much of the rest of the 1st amendment addressing the issue you responded to. Churches have the freedom of religion to define marriage for their members and the freedom of speech to speak out against both the government and other religions.
Third we have civil rights and the the ruling (I believe by Justice Marshal, but I haven't looked at it in a while) that stated that separate but equal is not equal. A system of civil unions and marriage would not provide equal rights to homosexuals, this is already legal precedent (though the ruling was addressing segregation in schools). I've already stated that sexual orientation is like color or gender. Perhaps it is not as immutable (anything can be changed, including both gender and skin color), but it is closer to those types of traits than things like religion or political affiliation. I know that this condition of immutability and the applicability of civil rights are the arguments regarding gay marriage that will decide the issue (at least in the courts). I believe that the data and logic suggest that if we are to err on the side of human rights and the spirit of the constitution we have enough information now to legalize gay marriage. It will likely become more clear. Your position errs on the side of religiously guided bigotry. Yes, we have some gray area, but is it better to err towards human rights or bigotry?

tfarrell wrote:

Wren wrote:

Only federal statutory law can create the legal definition of marriage that you want.

The Supreme Court wont because same-sex marriage is not a constitutional, human, or civil right. The people wont. Once the maneuvering is over in Massachusetts, the people will vote to amend the state constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman.

You can get mad, you can yell, you can be ugly " but you cannot disprove any of what I have written above.


Let's see...

Marriage is and has always been defined at the state level in the United States, so you're flat wrong that only federal law can provide a specific definition of marriage.

There, I've disproved one of the things you wrote above. Happy?

Also don't hold your breath about the massachusetts amendment vote even occurring, let alone being successful.

You must not convince us why you are right, but instead why I am wrong, and so far, reading all of you, you are doing a very poor job.

As you are the one seeking to deprive someone of rights, it's your burden to prove the necessity.

I knew you would fall for it.

OK, you can go ahead now and admit you can admit you can't win in the federal court system.

Thus, let's leave it to the local state courts and the state legislative/amendment procedure. Yes, the Massachusetts voters will get their day.

You don't have human, civil, or constutitonal right to marry someone of your own sex, thus the burden of proof is on you to prove such rights.

You can't prove such rights; changing the system at the state level will eventually backfire on you; and you will never win at the federal level.

Your mouth is now hanging open as do your friends here everytime I end the debate with my conclusion.

No faith and no hope exist that you can ever win permanently on this issue.

'Nuff said.

gopherus wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

gopherus wrote:

My argument is that you have argued under false pretenses. You pretend to be concerned about promiscuity but you are really concerned about homosexuality.


You have no real idea what my concerns are. You are misrepresenting them with homophobia and bigotry to dismiss my very real concerns. This is called an ad hominem argument. It's purpose is to attack the person rather than the argument.

gopherus wrote:

I believe that you fear gay marriage because if married homosexual males bring their level of promiscuity in line with other married males your argument fails and you have to come out of the closet.
If I grant you the promiscuity argument (I don't intend to, but we can set up a hypothetical situation) do your propose to grant the right to marriage to lesbians?


Actually, the thought has occurred to me that it might be a good idea to restrict marriages for everyone. It's obvious to me that all lot of people don't understand what it means. But the topic on the table right now is same sex marriage, so that's what I'm talking about. Same sex marriage applies to both lesbians and gays. If I was convinced that the net gain to society from gay marriage was positive because of the lesbians, I would be for it.

gopherus wrote:

I've made my arguments for gay marriage hundreds of posts ago, you can go back and look at them.
When you wish to come to the table with an argument you are welcome to do so.


You want me to search through hundreds of your old posts to figure out what your arguments are? I've been begging for them for the last thirty or so of my posts. If you can't reiterate your arguments as they apply to this thread at this time, then it doesn't seem you have very much interest in letting me know what they are. They must not be very important to you.


I could say that if you aren't willing to search for some of my previous posts so that you can argue against them in a logical manner that this issue must not be very important to you. Of course to do that with a straight face I'd have to be a jerk who assumes you have nothing but time or assume you are so stupid you are unemployable, but I'll do neither.
I'm pasting a post I made in response to Wren. It is not my best work, but is relatively comprehensive (though off-the-cuff).
Here it is:
I disagree with you only in the implied guarantee and what being homosexual is like. Recent data suggests that being homosexual is somewhat like being a person of color or male or female. We clearly have a group that is different from others by some biological nature that they are, at least to some extent, born with. They have become the last accepted (by the majority) target of discrimination. I do believe that there are civil rights implications here. There are also other constitutional implications, though no explicit guarantees (which there are very few of relative to the body of law based on the constitution).
First we have the issue of defining marriage. The establishment clause of the 1st amendment leads me to believe that we can't define marriage based on the belief of a particular religion. Given the diversity of beliefs on religion (from the acceptance of homosexual marriage to the demand of polygamy this is probably for the best). People know this, that's why we need an amendment to define marriage.
Second we have much of the rest of the 1st amendment addressing the issue you responded to. Churches have the freedom of religion to define marriage for their members and the freedom of speech to speak out against both the government and other religions.
Third we have civil rights and the the ruling (I believe by Justice Marshal, but I haven't looked at it in a while) that stated that separate but equal is not equal. A system of civil unions and marriage would not provide equal rights to homosexuals, this is already legal precedent (though the ruling was addressing segregation in schools). I've already stated that sexual orientation is like color or gender. Perhaps it is not as immutable (anything can be changed, including both gender and skin color), but it is closer to those types of traits than things like religion or political affiliation. I know that this condition of immutability and the applicability of civil rights are the arguments regarding gay marriage that will decide the issue (at least in the courts). I believe that the data and logic suggest that if we are to err on the side of human rights and the spirit of the constitution we have enough information now to legalize gay marriage. It will likely become more clear. Your position errs on the side of religiously guided bigotry. Yes, we have some gray area, but is it better to err towards human rights or bigotry?


You, much more than tferrel, make some sense, but the due process argument will inevitably fail you.

You have to prove that you have such rights as you claim, not that you are being denied, and that is a burden of proof you will not be able to permanently carry.

fefifofob wrote:

[b]Here's a test for anyone who wants to try it.[/b]

Go to these web sites and compare the personal ads.

http://www.gay.com (go to the personals)

http://www.match.com

Do a random search for both a gay friend on gay.com and a straight one on match.com.

See if you notice any difference. Are they all upstanding respectable pillars of society or is one different from the other?

Yhe both want uou to sign up pretty quickly, so pay attention.


The difference is that match.com censors its personal ads (rather strongly), gay.com does not. If you want an actually valid comparison, compare the straight personal ads on match.com to the gay personal ads on match.com . But given that it's you, I assume you don't really want a valid comparison.

I tried to post a personal ad on match.com in which I said that I don't have sex on the first few dates. It was rejected as "too explicit". I removed that line and the ad was accepted.

I, for one, refuse to condemn a personals site for allowing its members more freedom of speech.

And again, match.com isn't a straight personals site, it's for everyone, so your comparison has no relevance to this discussion.

Oh, and a sample size of 1 is statistically meaningless.