Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by JR MacBeth
It seems low to call me out for being "late to the party" as something that might make my response less valid. The thread was quite vigorous and I
tend not to read replies before I get my original response out. I'd be fine with calling myself out as it'd be my choice, but I see nothing wrong
with posting late as long as followups are done.
You're obviously well-read and your spelling and grammar are impeccable, so attempting to bash people with your intellect would only be a good idea
when someone can't defend themselves against it. I recommend sticking to the argument instead of trying to dismantle the thread and go off topic. I
try not to reply to trolling but in this case, you warranted a reply because you do make some points in your post.
I had to search through the forum to find GetReadyAlready's post and it is definitely a legitimate argument against same sex marriage IF there's no
way for that couple to have children AND you discount all the other heterosexual couples out there that can't have children, yet still decide to get
married. There is, and the tax benefit can apply to them the same as it does for heterosexual couples with children. It's really more of a reason for
couples who don't have children to have their marriage annulled because they don't produce a tax base. And I covered it already in a previous
Regarding the man/animal and man/boy legalization issues, I believe that there are some supporters of those, but they're definitely minor and then
you have to deal with consent issues and the who rights over minors/animals to contend with. But comparing legal consenting behavior between two adult
people and those of an animal or minor is disingenuous at best and very similar in strategy to comparing people you disagree with to Hitler or Stalin
to garner that emotional association before the discussion even starts.
Thanks grahag, appreciate the civil reply, as well as your kind words.
Glad you got a chance to read getreadyalready's contribution, at least now we can all agree that there really are more or less reasonable arguments
on both sides of virtually any issue, including those we may care most about.
As far as being late to the party, my apologies for any condemnatory tone directed too much at you, obviously we all make posts at times without
reading an entire thread, especially if they are lengthy. My frustration was more with those who ducked in just to make their announcement, that
"yep, no logical argument!", without really offering any contribution. This is the kind of thing that can be bothersome in any discussion.
As far as your gentle accusation that I have derailed the thread, and am more or less trolling, well, I will have to take issue with that I'm
Offered here as a reminder, being so late in the thread, here is what our OP provided:
So my question here to ATS is, are there any decent points on the other side that have been overlooked
My congratulations to you, since you have actually found one, after having it pointed out to you.
As far as pushing off-topic, you failed to mention a specific example in my case, but you may have been a bit mixed up, based on my final comments
I'll get to before completing this post.
My opinion is that going radically off-topic is mostly what the pro-gay-marriage folks have been doing, from page one. Think about it. The
"assignment" was to try and find "decent points on the other side", and quite frankly, there has been a very vigorous attempt to push a social
agenda instead, with some posting over and over, the same OFF-TOPIC nonsense.
Honestly, why wouldn't you lay this very accusation at the feet of Annee, or hotbakedtater, since they have made the most posts, and they are mostly
off-topic? No wonder you failed to cite a specific example, since I have been one of those taking the unpopular job of trying to keep the political
zealots under control (not easy).
Of course it's fine to be a democrat, or a republican, or a whig, who cares? But for those who are somehow surprised to find that the assignment
wasn't to announce victory on every page, well maybe now they can put their thinking caps back on.
There have been some great posts I think on both sides, although I seem to be the only one starring Garfee's posts. Someone who self-identified as
being personally very acquainted with this real-world situation, has been continually told to stuff it, with the slogan "separate but equal" being
thrown in his face, over and over. The gentleman is 100% on-topic with his contributions, and all he gets is political slogans? Sadly grahag, I
observe that you have seemingly joined in with this as well. I wouldn't even point it out, but really, you're calling the kettle black here.
I have gay friends, and family, and IMO, Garfee is far from being the radical one here, he is expressing what I would consider a majority opinion from
the gay community. Oh, but who cares what they think, especially if you're trying to change the world?
As far as children and animals go, I'm sure you have me mixed up with someone else, otherwise, it would be a clear attempt on your part to
marginalize me by identifying me with the ludicrous fringe (at least you didn't accuse me of being a Bible-thumper!). Actually, considering you
specifically mention Hitler and Stalin, I guess vilification must be your aim.
Well, I suppose we'll just leave it at that.