New York state just passed same sex marriage bill

reply to post by CobraCommander


Again: Slippery Slope and False Causal Connection as argument techniques are puerile and unsophisticated. Trying to somehow connect gay marriage and incest in order to prompt a certain reaction is ineffective and sophomoric.

Hey, good news!!

That's a rarity these days. Congrats to new york.

reply to post by dalloway


A small minority? Where the hell did you get that statistic from?

I say we have a war and put them all in their own special little units lead by the sons of world leaders and globalists for special big tasks like paving the way at the front line for our special forces. That way we can keep an eye on them in the military.

I don't care what they do behind closed doors if it is consensual between two adults but it stops right there.

Originally posted by dalloway
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Again: Slippery Slope and False Causal Connection as argument techniques are puerile and unsophisticated. Trying to somehow connect gay marriage and incest in order to prompt a certain reaction is ineffective and sophomoric.

The slippery slope is the redefining of marriage and causal connection the legislation which has mandated the new precedent. Using big words and terms without understanding their substance is rather juvenile and undermines your standing in this debate.

As I have already stated, any argument which can be made to support the redefining of marriage to allow for gay marriage, can also be made for incest, or even polygamy.

reply to post by bluemirage5


Again: Gay marriage in no way harms society. Every single opinion to the contrary is biased in one way or another by religious politics and is unquestionably anti-civil rights.

What color is your hair, bluemirage5? Lets say it's brown. Okay, hey everyone with brown hair, listen up: There's this thing called My Religion, and My Religion says you're not allowed to get married. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

See how ridiculous that is?

It's about time people get their heads out of their asses.

Originally posted by dalloway
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

Again: Gay marriage in no way harms society. Every single opinion to the contrary is biased in one way or another by religious politics and is unquestionably anti-civil rights.

What color is your hair, bluemirage5? Lets say it's brown. Okay, hey everyone with brown hair, listen up: There's this thing called My Religion, and My Religion says you're not allowed to get married. Sorry. Thanks for playing.

See how ridiculous that is?

It's not about religion, it is about the meaning of words and the defining of reality. Calling gay unions marriage is tantamount to calling both green and red, green by law. See how ridiculous that is?

Fantastic news!

Good on you New York!

ya get some whacked out straight marriages anyway.

if gays want to marry let them. geeze! i been married twice!

what's the problem?

they could make better parents sometimes if they adopt, obviously.

unfortunately, the insurance companies will have a say.

you can't marry your 59' gold top and insure it for 2mill and it ends up dead. lol!!

or your goat or car, etc.

there are laws for incest already.

what the problem is, i have no idea.

it seems like propaganda being spewed.

it is all about the legal aspect.

reply to post by dalloway


I don't care what they do so long as they keep to themselves and keep their mouths shut.

Perhaps they should all move to Islamic countries.....1.4 billion of them and their moral police can keep a closer eye on them. Let's fly them to Iran and parachute them down in their lil Mardi Gra outfits.

Two men getting married, or two women getting married, has no effect on me. It has an effect on them. They have more problems than they think.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by dalloway
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Again: Slippery Slope and False Causal Connection as argument techniques are puerile and unsophisticated. Trying to somehow connect gay marriage and incest in order to prompt a certain reaction is ineffective and sophomoric.

The slippery slope is the redefining of marriage and causal connection the legislation which has mandated the new precedent. Using big words and terms without understanding their substance is rather juvenile and undermines your standing in this debate.

As I have already stated, any argument which can be made to support the redefining of marriage to allow for gay marriage, can also be made for incest, or even polygamy.

Pffft. Doesn't matter what you scramble up to use as your supposed slippery slope and causal connection, those two techniques are still just not even useful for a freshman debater. Presenting your major points and then presenting some solid pieces of data to back up those beliefs would be much more in line with what would be expected from a skilled debater. The use of words and phrases designed to frighten or provoke an emotional response but have no foundation in fact, is junior varsity all the way. I thought you were a more advanced debater than that, CC.

It's been fun, but I'm done for the night. Thanks for the conversation. Have a pleasant tomorrow.

Originally posted by fooks
ya get some whacked out straight marriages anyway.

if gays want to marry let them. geeze! i been married twice!

what's the problem?

they could make better parents sometimes if they adopt, obviously.

unfortunately, the insurance companies will have a say.

you can't marry your 59' gold top and insure it for 2mill and it ends up dead. lol!!

or your goat or car, etc.

there are laws for incest already.

what the problem is, i have no idea.

it seems like propaganda being spewed.

it is all about the legal aspect.

There are laws for sodomy too.

Mixed signals

www.southparkstudios.com...

Originally posted by dalloway


Pffft. Doesn't matter what you scramble up to use as your supposed slippery slope and causal connection, those two techniques are still just not even useful for a freshman debater. Presenting your major points and then presenting some solid pieces of data to back up those beliefs would be much more in line with what would be expected from a skilled debater. The use of words and phrases designed to frighten or provoke an emotional response but have no foundation in fact, is junior varsity all the way. I thought you were a more advanced debater than that, CC.

It's been fun, but I'm done for the night. Thanks for the conversation. Have a pleasant tomorrow.

I never said anything to frighten anyone, but you on the other hand rode right in here posing as some master debater without one shred of logic or a single example to support your position. I said nothing to provoke an emotional response, but stated factually, that anything which can be said to support gay marriage could also be used to support other forms of marriage not condoned by society, and by example I listed incest, and polygamy.

You can try to patronize me all you like with your unsubstantiated aloofness, but you only reveal how weak your position is by doing so.

Now can you give me one example why gay marriage should be allowed, but polygamy or incest should not be allowed by law?

I'm glad this passed!

Now let gay/lesbian couples deal with divorce courts, attorneys fees, alimony, child support, visitation rights, division of assets and every last bit of the underbelly of a failed marriage.

They've been getting a free ride WAY too long

On a serious note I am glad it passed- everyone needs the same protection under law for survivorship, insurance etc. that hetero couples enjoy.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I, for one, am glad to see this. It is rather silly. It eliminates any discrimination issue and it also removes a "talking point" that could be leveraged against more conservative pols.

I do enjoy your analogy about calling green and red, green. So they call "red", "green". If it makes them happy, then they can call "red" any color of the rainbow (pun). YOU know what color it is, I know what color it is, but if they want to call it green then by golly, let 'em.

You raise valid points but in the end, personal freedoms should take precidence over personal opinions.

My 2 cents.

reply to post by krill


I don't think marriage should be something from the state. It is, fundamentally, a religious entity. And taxes involved with it are stupid.

reply to post by CobraCommander


true but hard to prosecute if you are legally married.

lol!

right? u married?