So here's a GREAT educational video. Right-Wing, Religious Conservatives, in particular, need to watch it and listen...
Now it is with all that in mind that I would also like to post the following from Dan Savage:
"If the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong - slavery - what are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong?"
Or this, which I don't know from whence it came originally, but I read in an email the other day:
"Religion is like penis. It's OK to have one, but it's not OK to shove it in my face."
I post all this, as yet another counterpoint to the completely absurd argument that anyone chooses to be gay. Because this is not about gene's, or any other part of science that the Right wants to misuse. It's not a scientific argument. Not YET anyway. Right now? It's a semantic one. We don't yet agree on the TERMS, because SOME PEOPLE insist on refusing to acknowledge what WORDS MEAN. (If there's any question, I'll refer you to the video above. If you have a problem with that, go argue with THEM.)
Being Gay (Bi-, Lesbian, Pan-, A-) is not about one's BEHAVIOR. It is about one's PREFERENCES. That's what ORIENTATION means. Obviously one chooses one's behavior. No one is arguing about that. (Outside of University Philosophy Classes at anyway.) (I married a philosophy major, so I've got to cover all bases.) But you do not choose your PREFERENCES.
And saying that you do only demonstrates a complete ignorance of the fact that there even is a philosophical debate going on between Free Will and Determinism, never mind where you stand in it. I actually happen to hold on to the quaint and romantic notion of free-will myself. But that doesn't means that I don't understand the argument of the Determinists, even if I don't accept it in its entirely. Though, to be fair, it is completely idiotic to reject it in its entirety as well.
Go figure that so many Conservatives do exactly that.
You don't choose you're preferences. Period. They are the things that, consciously and unconsciously, influence you're choices. And that's not being Liberal - that's just not being a moron.
And remember:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
~Jefferson
Remember him? THAT'S what America is all about.
Now would anyway like to try telling me, again, why these people shouldn't have THE SAME rights as everybody else? (And they ARE the SAME rights, BTW. So don't be a fucking moron and try to talk about them wanting "special rights." That only marks YOU as "special!")
--------------------------------------------
BTW...
Date: 2/25/13
Morning Weight: 210.7 (BMI: 32.0)
Pounds Down: 4
Pounds to go: 36
No gym. (DW has Akido & Iado tonight.)
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"But you do not choose your PREFERENCES." ... and that is opinion? Or, do you have some facts to back that up? You were "born" preferring red-heads? I don't see that as a possibility. I see that as an excuse to act any way you want.
ReplyDelete"Now would anyway like to try telling me, again, why these people shouldn't have THE SAME rights as everybody else?" ... There is no reason they should not have the same rights. Afterall, we're talking about government sanctioning and religious teachings. There is a difference between the two. Why is it you "born that way" people can't figure that out? You can get any government you want to accept abnormal behavior and demand rights for choices made, but it doesn't mean that God will accept those choices.
"Remember him? THAT'S what America is all about." .... Really? Just how far are you allowed to go to achieve "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? There are plenty of other sexual choices (preferences as you call them), out there, that would love to demand the same rights you expect for gays. Are you going to give others the same rights you demand of ONE particular sexual deviance (preference) simply because you think they are cute? And don't give me the debunked theory that "no one gets hurt". It has been proven that harm comes to gays during their actions too. Only a moron would attempt that excuse.
So, we're back to the crux of the argument: The "America" you seem so proud of (by using the Jefferson statement) WAS a Christian nation (Jefferson was a self-proclaimed Christian). Now, it has been reduced to less and you want to reduce it more while claiming pride in a nation based on Christianity. You see you can't have it both ways. You either accept religion is part of this nation or demand religion take a lesser role in our nation. You can't pridefully quote a Christian leader who helped frame our nation's rules and laws then say religion has no place in our nation.
"And don't give me the debunked theory that "no one gets hurt". It has been proven that harm comes to gays during their actions too. Only a moron would attempt that excuse."
DeleteI accept your thinly-veiled challenge. I find it amusing that you really want this a point of contention now after you ran away from other threads on the same subject (that's how you refer to it when Eddie leaves a thread, so the same obviously would apply to you, right?)
First, remember that your definition of "harm" includes psychologicial harm from bigotry. That would also apply to miscegenation, a point you refused to address earlier, and essentially anything that has at any time in history been controversial. Mixed-faith marriages, for instance, counts as "harm" because some people just don't like it.
Second, heterosexuals engage in sodomy as well, and you're also basing your view off of something that not every gay couple does. What about older couples? Is that not "immoral" if they're too old to have sex? How about lesbians? Still a sin in the Bible, but what psychical "harm" is there supposed to be? And if it's still immoral without harm, then why use harm as an excuse?
Third, how do YOU determine harm on the behalf of consenting adults? There's nothing to say there isn't a perfectly functional relationship, but somehow you think you can declare it's "harmful" based on...? Your arrogance, seemingly.
Which leads to the final point;if you want to claim that homosexuality is a choice, that's absurd on the face of it. If you want to claim it's harmful, that's also pretty dumb. But what's outrageously stupid is to claim both, because if homosexuality was really a choice, and it constituted "harm", then why the hell wouldn't people just change their minds? The two concepts don't go together at all. You want to claim that people "choose" what makes them happy, but if they thought there was an element of harm, they wouldn't choose that.
Good luck.
By the way:"... There is no reason they should not have the same rights."
And:"There are plenty of other sexual choices (preferences as you call them), out there, that would love to demand the same rights you expect for gays. Are you going to give others the same rights you demand of ONE particular sexual deviance (preference) simply because you think they are cute?"
Doesn't it seem just a little inconsistent to say that there's "no reason" gay people shouldn't have rights, and then make a slippery slope argument that accepting homosexuality will lead to the government giving other people rights, as if that's now a problem? It comes across a bit odd, even for you. I eagerly anticipate your ad hominem attacks in lieu of any coherent explanation.
"Doesn't it seem just a little inconsistent " ... no inconsistency. What "harm" comes from marriage where the husband has multiple wives? If there is no harm, why is it against the law? Why do they NOT have the "right" to get married?
Delete"First, remember that your definition of "harm" includes psychologicial harm from bigotry. That would also apply to miscegenation, a point you refused to address earlier," ... that has been answered several times already. Perhaps you should read better before dissing me for not answering.
"Second", "And if it's still immoral without harm, then why use harm as an excuse?" ... I'm not using it as an excuse, you are. I call sexual immorality a sin whether harm is involved or not.
"Third, how do YOU determine harm on the behalf of consenting adults?" ... I don't make ANY decisions for "consenting adults". I make my decision on what is harmful for my own life, not someone else's.
"final point", "You want to claim that people "choose" what makes them happy," ... Eddie explains that is how HE makes HIS choices in life. How do you make yours?
Now that we're done with your "coherent explanation", could you try using statements that I actually said instead of making things up .... AGAIN?
"... no inconsistency. What "harm" comes from marriage where the husband has multiple wives?"
DeleteThat isn't what you said:"There are plenty of other sexual choices (preferences as you call them), out there, that would love to demand the same rights you expect for gays. Are you going to give others the same rights you demand of ONE particular sexual deviance (preference) simply because you think they are cute?" That sure sounds like you think it's a problem, not that polygamy is fine and dandy. If that wasn't your point, what was, and how does it fit into that context?
If you really want my views on that, the harm is that it forces either A)the legal system to take on any number of wife v. wife fights for inheritance and control, or B)A designation of superior spouses, which means the state determines a hierarchy of legal rights. Meaning some people are superior to others, presumably by order of marriage. That, frankly, is garbage. If people want to overturn Utah's laws regarding polyamory, I'm for that. There's absolutely NO need or justification at all for the state to sanction polygamy.
"... that has been answered several times already."
No, it hasn't.
"... I'm not using it as an excuse, you are. I call sexual immorality a sin whether harm is involved or not."
Your first sentence doesn't even make sense. How is claiming that there's no harm an excuse, as opposed to a valid reason for acceptance? And remember, you said only a moron would claim "no one gets hurt". Now you're acting as if harm is a side issue that you don't really care about.
"... I don't make ANY decisions for "consenting adults"."
Obviously you do, because you've determined a consensual act to be "harm". You want to argue over the concept of whether "no one gets hurt", while you're just talking about...yourself? What are you smoking?
"Eddie explains that is how HE makes HIS choices in life."
You didn't address the point:"But what's outrageously stupid is to claim both, because if homosexuality was really a choice, and it constituted "harm", then why the hell wouldn't people just change their minds?" Try again.
"Now that we're done with your "coherent explanation", could you try using statements that I actually said instead of making things up .... AGAIN?"
What, specifically, are you claiming that I manufactured? I can't wait to see this one.
"There's absolutely NO need or justification at all for the state to sanction polygamy." .... and the "NEED" to justify the state sanctioning gay marriage ... is what?
Delete"Obviously you do, because you've determined a consensual act to be "harm"." ... Did you even take English class in school? Do you know the difference between the words "for" and "of"? I've made my opinions "of" their choices, I do NOT make those choices "FOR" them. Please, if that's the best you can do ...
".... and the "NEED" to justify the state sanctioning gay marriage ... is what?"
DeleteTo give people the right to have a single designated life partner...you know, the way straight people do?
"... Did you even take English class in school? Do you know the difference between the words "for" and "of"?"
I didn't say you made their choice "for" them, I said you determined what was harmful on their behalf. Did you misread my original comment? Try again:"Third, how do YOU determine harm on the behalf of consenting adults?" You think if you substitute a word and I repeat my point that somehow I'M guilty of using the wrong word? Nice try, almost.
By the way, still waiting for the examples of things I supposedly made up in lieu of what you actually said. You made the charge, you should substantiate it.
Delete"To give people the right to have a single designated life partner...you know, the way straight people do?" ... Ahh, so you are going to LIMIT people to just "one" life partner? How hypocritical of you. You whine that I'm not allowed to oppose gay marriage based on the consensus that they have a "right" to state sanctioned marriage since there is no "harm" to others, but you oppose state sanctioned polygamy because you don't approve of that type of behavior? You've got some 'splainin to do.
DeleteEddie used the phrases "Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness” and "consenting adults" while defending the CHOICE of homosexuality. WHAT basis are you going to use to deny anyone the "right" to marriage for those who CHOOSE to have multiple partners? I want to know how you support that hypocritical stance.
"By the way, still waiting for the examples of things I supposedly made up in lieu of what you actually said." ... I've given examples each time I've made the claim. I have substantiated them. Just because you can't comprehend what is right in front of your face, I don't have to repeat myself over and over.
"I didn't say you made their choice "for" them, I said you determined what was harmful on their behalf."
This is what I said: "... I don't make ANY decisions for "consenting adults"."
This is what you said: "Obviously you do, because you've determined a consensual act to be "harm"."
Yes, you absolutely said I made the decision FOR them ("Obviously you do"). And I have shown that you mis-read what I wrote. Is it really wise for you to show your intelligence limitations on a site where you try to showboat yourself all the time?
And, while you are whining about me determining what is harm to consenting adults ... please explain again why you would outlaw multiple partner marriages but demand homosexual marriages? Considering your only excuses for support of gay marriage are: lack of harm and consenting adults. I think I missed you ignoring that question earlier, so I thought I'd ask it twice. I'll have twice as good a laugh watching you squirm around trying to answer that without coming over as a complete hypocrite to your beliefs.
"... Ahh, so you are going to LIMIT people to just "one" life partner?"
DeleteYes, because it creates a legal quagmire for no good reason. Do you have an argument to the contrary? I'm anxious to hear it.
"WHAT basis are you going to use to deny anyone the "right" to marriage for those who CHOOSE to have multiple partners?"
Since you missed it the first time:"If you really want my views on that, the harm is that it forces either A)the legal system to take on any number of wife v. wife fights for inheritance and control, or B)A designation of superior spouses, which means the state determines a hierarchy of legal rights. Meaning some people are superior to others, presumably by order of marriage. That, frankly, is garbage. If people want to overturn Utah's laws regarding polyamory, I'm for that. There's absolutely NO need or justification at all for the state to sanction polygamy."
".. I've given examples each time I've made the claim."
No, you haven't. Prove me wrong.
"Yes, you absolutely said I made the decision FOR them"
No, I restated my original point. YOU substituting a word is not my fault, sorry. Besides, didn't you say something about playing semantics and how that was a great way to admit defeat, or something to that effect? Hoisted on your own petard, yet again.
"I think I missed you ignoring that question earlier, so I thought I'd ask it twice."
Obviously you did miss it, since I re-posted it above. It was a whole paragraph, so I'm curious as to how you didn't see it.
Come to think of it, you quoted from part of that paragraph that I re-posted. So, if you really want to challenge what you obviously know I said, then you could just do that instead of pretending that you didn't see my explanation.
DeleteSo why didn't you do that? Because you can't find fault with it, I'm inclined to believe.
"Yes, because it creates a legal quagmire for no good reason. Do you have an argument to the contrary?" ... and the "legal quagmire" that we're in for gay marriage is better in what way?
DeleteNo argument to the contrary. I just want to verify you are a hypocrite for denying marriage to those who have chosen a lifestyle that you don't approve of.
A) is false because you are assuming that life-partners will not get along. Can I make those same assumptions in my arguments against gay marriage?
B) there is no "designation" that needs to be made. Your preconceived notions that families can't live in peace and harmony with more than one wife is hateful and bigoted. Perhaps you are just being prejudicial against a chosen lifestyle ... for whatever reason. I think the reason is because you are a bigot and hater and hypocrite. There is NO other acceptable reason for you to not favor polygamy if you are in favor of gay marriage. I could go into religious reasons why neither would be allowed, but I've already been told that using religion isn't acceptable. And, since you have only ASSUMED problems (ultra-weak strawman arguments at that), then there is no legal issue either.
" There's absolutely NO need or justification at all for the state to sanction polygamy." " .... and, there is NO need or justification for the state to sanction gay marriage. The legal quagmire that is already present and has been for 20 or so years is reason enough (using YOUR standards) to deny marriage for gays.
Let's recap:
Deletebarbantio/eddie say gay marriage is ok because:
1; consenting adults in relationship
2; no harm is caused
3; they should be allowed 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'
barbantio (not sure about eddie) say polygamy is NOT ok even though:
1; consenting adults in relationship
2; no harm is caused
3; they should be allowed 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'
barbantio also says that the 20+ years long legal quagmire that gay marriage has caused to the court system is acceptable but the possibility of a slight increase in court load caused by polygamists is UN-acceptable.
Intersting stances you hold there. What was it Eddie called it? Oh, yeah ... "binary thinking". Looks like you guys have a load of it too!
"... and the "legal quagmire" that we're in for gay marriage is better in what way?"
DeleteWhat complications arise from allowing two people of the same sex to get married as opposed to two people of the opposite sex? Be specific, since you're clearly saying there are legal complications involved.
"No argument to the contrary."
Then you can't declare me a hypocrite, genius. Are you basing your comparison of polygamy and gay marriage off of their inclusion in your broad category of things you don't approve of? I don't see what else makes them equal to you, and you can't explain it. It's not the same for me. I listed clear reasons why polygamy is not acceptable, and those reasons don't apply to gay marriage. Ergo, they're two different things, so evaluating them differently is not inconsistent. Thoughts?
"A) is false because you are assuming that life-partners will not get along. Can I make those same assumptions in my arguments against gay marriage?"
Where's the competition for spousal rights in gay marriage? If there's one spouse, there's no competition. So, you can make those assumptions, if you're stupid.
"B) there is no "designation" that needs to be made. Your preconceived notions that families can't live in peace and harmony with more than one wife is hateful and bigoted."
Some surely can, and they could live in polyamory as well. That doesn't mean you aren't going to have issues with, say, hospital visitation rights and power of attorney. You can't have ten wives in a hospital room at the same time, and you can't have ten wives all have the right to make decisions on behalf of someone who can't make them for themselves. That's a problem (and guess what? It doesn't apply to gay marriage)
"barbantio also says that the 20+ years long legal quagmire that gay marriage has caused to the court system is acceptable but the possibility of a slight increase in court load caused by polygamists is UN-acceptable."
I had been wondering what "quagmire" you were talking about. You're arguing against yourself. If you make gay marriage legal, then you end any petitions to the court by gay advocates. That would be simplifying things, an argument forgay marriage.
You're also not grasping the scope of the problem with polygamy (although someone who continues to spell my name wrong may not be able to grasp much at all, to be fair). I'm military, remember? My wife gets benefits because of it. Would that apply to three, six, thirteen wives? How about allowance for housing or sustenance, specifically? Is it fair for me to gouge the taxpayers by marrying a dozen women and having the government pay for housing and food allowances for all of them? Where does the concept of adultery go, for purposes of divorce? If you can legally marry whoever you want, then how does "infidelity" have any meaning or constitute grounds for divorce? What about allowing people to live in the USA based on marriage? Can I marry twenty chinese women and give all of them the right to move to America? You can't very well test that, because nobody's going to remember the favorite color and food, etc. of twenty different women. Here's one for you:if you die in a car accident and your wife dies two hours later from complications from the accident, and your wife happened to have another husband that you didn't even know about, does that man have a legal claim on your property? If not, why not?
Obviously, the legal institution of marriage has legal ramifications. Polygamy raises a hell of a lot of problems, while by your unwitting admission, gay marriage alleviates any legal conflicts. But by all means, just mindlessly keep insisting that polygamy and gay marriage are exactly the same, and I simply must be a hypocrite for spotting the difference between them. It makes you look like quite the intellectual (sarcasm).
"What complications arise from allowing two people of the same sex to get married as opposed to two people of the opposite sex?" ... Our LAWS clearly state marriage is between a "man and a woman". {that (I assume) is the basis to forbid polygamy (man and more than one woman), right?} You are seeking the CHANGE of those laws with the continued "quagmire" in our legal system. Do our LAWS count as being "specific"?
Delete"Where's the competition for spousal rights in gay marriage?" ... the same "competition" that is in EVERY relationship. Duhhh
"That doesn't mean you aren't going to have issues with, say, hospital visitation rights and power of attorney." .... P.O.A. ... well, that means you think that polygamysts aren't smart enought to create a WILL or designate ONE as their P.O.A.? Wow, you are failing quite miserably right now. Let's see how you do on the rest of your response .....
" That would be simplifying things, an argument forgay marriage." ... again ... Duhhh. Of course it's an argument FOR gay marriage, because it also is an argument FOR polygamy. So, where's your excuse for YOU being for gay marriage and YOU being against polygamy in context of the legal system "quagmire" that you will deny one group the same rights you seek for the other?
"My wife gets benefits because of it. Would that apply to three, six, thirteen wives?" ... why not? They would have the "right" wouldn't they?
"Is it fair for me to gouge the taxpayers ... " .... Oh, NOW you're worried about being "FAIR"? Wow, did we just move the goal-post or what? Is it "FAIR" for a woman to continue using government assistance to fulfill her abortion needs time and again? Yet, your insistance on those "rights" guarantee her of that.
"But by all means, just mindlessly keep insisting that polygamy and gay marriage are exactly the same, and I simply must be a hypocrite for spotting the difference between them." .... WHERE did I say they were "exactly the same"? The similarities are undeniable, but I've never said they were the same.
" ... Our LAWS clearly state marriage is between a "man and a woman".
DeleteThat's not a complication, because any change of the law involves...ready? A change of the law. That's like arguing that abolishing laws against buying alcohol on Sunday are going to create a legal mess because you can't buy alcohol on Sunday.
"{that (I assume) is the basis to forbid polygamy (man and more than one woman), right?}"
You "assume" that wording is the basis to forbid polygamy, when legal reasons have been explained to you? Interesting.
"... the same "competition" that is in EVERY relationship. Duhhh"
What, exactly, do you think you're talking about? What multiple spouses are competing in any marriage?
".... P.O.A. ... well, that means you think that polygamysts aren't smart enought to create a WILL or designate ONE as their P.O.A.?"
See, the fact that wills aren't always found is why the designation of marriage is important. My father's will was never found, because my mother was coming down with Alzheimer's when he died. It's got nothing to do with his intelligence or sense of responsibility. Besides that, don't you think that if you have four wives, one of them just might have an interest in destroying a will or P.O.A.? I think "duhhh" applies very well to that lack of foresight on your part.
"... again ... Duhhh. Of course it's an argument FOR gay marriage, because it also is an argument FOR polygamy."
No, because all the complications that arise from polygamy come about from legal sanctioning of it. That's why I said polyamory was fine, because that doesn't involve the state.
"... why not? They would have the "right" wouldn't they?
Presumably, so that's a problem. Why should that be allowed, in your view?
".... Oh, NOW you're worried about being "FAIR"? Wow, did we just move the goal-post or what?"
No, we didn't. It's a clear problem with polygamy, and your diversion to abortion demonstrates that you can't address the merits of it. Do you want to insist on changing the subject, while you whine about that when you claim I do it?
".... WHERE did I say they were "exactly the same"? The similarities are undeniable, but I've never said they were the same."
Then the differences allow me to evaluate them differently. Therefore, you can't use the term "hypocrite" for that. Forgive me for thinking you actually understood the term you love to use so much.
"That's not a complication, because any change of the law involves...ready? A change of the law." ... Wow, you figured that out all by yourself? The CONTEXT of this exchange is the "quagmire" caused in the legal system. What part of that are you having trouble understanding? YOU said the quagmire in the legal system is ONE reason you will not support marriage rights of polygamysts. Yet, after a continued quagmire in the legal system 'for gay marriage' you fully support their cause, in spite of that.
DeleteDid you decide not to correct my "20+ years" statement because you KNOW it has been waay longer than that? And, yet, the "QUAGMIRE" is your concern for the "right to marriage" of the polygamyst. Can you explain that difference?
"You "assume" that wording is the basis to forbid polygamy, when legal reasons have been explained to you?" ... No, those reasons are your OPINION. See below statement to correlate that.
"What multiple spouses are competing in any marriage?" ... What are YOU talking about? Do you think "competition" only comes from 'within' the relationship? If so, you ARE a moron. Each person getting INTO a relationship (of any kind) knows (or should) what they are getting into. That is what is meant by "CONSENTING ADULTS" entering into a relationship. Correct me, if I'm wrong, but "consenting adults" DO get into relationships, don't they? Isn't that what YOU and Eddie claim as being one of THE determiners in allowing gay marriage? (oooo, that's 2 out of 2 reasons you support one yet deny the other)
Or ... is your (unsubstantiated) fear about polygamy that the man will simply 'tell' every woman he 'wants' that she is to 'be his wife'? If so, that "moron" qualifier still aplies. LOL
"No, because all the complications that arise from polygamy come about from legal sanctioning of it." ... In what way? Try not to use your 'opinionated' reasons. Please try to use a viable reason.
And, how much "drain" on the system can 50-100 people have? (if that is you main concern about the "drain" on the economics of our American financial system)
"Then the differences allow me to evaluate them differently." ... and the differences are ... what? Your 'legal' concern has been debunked, your 'harm' issue has been debunked and your 'life/liberty/happines' concern has been debunked. What do you have left that is different from your demands for gay marriage?
That makes you 0 for 3 in all the reasons you given so far to demand gay marriage rights, yet deny polygamyst marriage rights. Do you have any more reasons? Or, are we done now?
" Besides that, don't you think that if you have four wives, one of them just might have an interest in destroying a will or P.O.A.? I think "duhhh" applies very well to that lack of foresight on your part." .... Did you really just say that? If you really think that isn't a possibility in ANY relationship, then ...well, I've explained that one a couple times already.
DeleteBring something new. Flounder is a good fish but you are terrible at trying to imitate one.
"The CONTEXT of this exchange is the "quagmire" caused in the legal system."
DeleteI know. So how is simply changing the law a "quagmire"? Your lack of specificity here isn't my responsibility.
"Did you decide not to correct my "20+ years" statement because you KNOW it has been waay longer than that? And, yet, the "QUAGMIRE" is your concern for the "right to marriage" of the polygamyst. Can you explain that difference?"
I can explain it again, sure. If you sanction polygamy, you're creating legal problems. Your complaint about gay marriage is that the fight forit is the problem, meaning that once it's established in law, then there's no more fight. Therefore, no more problem.
"... No, those reasons are your OPINION"
I didn't say it wasn't. So what? They're still obvious ramifications, which you can't dispute, and that makes a valid argument. Besides, is your opposition to abortion based on fact? Tread wisely.
"... What are YOU talking about? Do you think "competition" only comes from 'within' the relationship?"
The difference between polygamy and monogamy is that in polygamy, someone has more than one spouse. How are you comparing that to "all relationships" when the issue is legal rights granted to a spouse?
"Each person getting INTO a relationship (of any kind) knows (or should) what they are getting into."
Which is why I don't oppose polyamorous relationships. They just shouldn't be sanctioned by the government.
"... In what way? Try not to use your 'opinionated' reasons."
Because marriage is a legal institution, and has legal ramifications. Spouses have rights. Competing spouses have to compete for those rights. What part of this is complicated for you?
"And, how much "drain" on the system can 50-100 people have?"
Where the hell did you get 50-100 people? It's also not purely financial, as any number of spouses can file any number of suits, clogging up much-needed court time.
"... and the differences are ... what?"
Polygamy is different from monogamy.
"Your 'legal' concern has been debunked, your 'harm' issue has been debunked and your 'life/liberty/happines' concern has been debunked."
You haven't debunked, you've denied. When you can't grasp the difference between creating a problem and ending a problem, you clearly have no valid argument.
"If you really think that isn't a possibility in ANY relationship, then ...well, I've explained that one a couple times already."
What does that have to do with your suggestion that everyone's going to have a will or P.O.A. and therefore there's no legal conflict between spouses?
"I can explain it again, sure. If you sanction polygamy, you're creating legal problems." ... there's no "creating" problems. Only in your (what have you been smoking) mind will additional "problems" occur within a relationship of CONSENTING ADULTS. And, if a mythical "problem" did exist, then it would NOT be exclusive to polygamy and your entire pretense is washed down the sink.
Delete"Besides, is your opposition to abortion based on fact? " ... Yes. It is based on my religion.
"Which is why I don't oppose polyamorous relationships. They just shouldn't be sanctioned by the government." ... I feel quite similar concerning gay marriage. Now what? Am I the bigot or are you? Or both of us?
"Competing spouses have to compete for those rights. " ... this part is the complicated part. WHY do they HAVE to COMPETE for RIGHTS? Just as in gay marriages, those rights would be inclusive (assuming democrats get their way). What YOU don't understand is that ADULTS can make their OWN choices for the type of relationship they want to get into. YOU have NO right to tell them NO. Just as I have NO right to tell gays they can't marry. You see, I am no hypocrite for my stance, you ARE.
"clogging up much-needed court time." ... to handle what --- gay marriage suits? All the gay marriage suits have clogged the system for so long how would you even notice an additional .05% increase in court cases?
"Polygamy is different from monogamy." ... a word you may want to have a relative look up (and not discuss with you) ... 'dementia'
"What does that have to do with your suggestion that everyone's going to have a will or P.O.A. and therefore there's no legal conflict between spouses?" ... let me use it one more time. Moron, my suggestion isn't what you say, rather it is that everyone has that option. I cannot control whether someone would take advantage of that.
"And, if a mythical "problem" did exist, then it would NOT be exclusive to polygamy and your entire pretense is washed down the sink."
DeleteRight, because there will be plenty of wife v. wife v. wife fights within the realm of monogamous marriages. Your claim makes no sense.
"... Yes. It is based on my religion."
Religion relies on faith, which is a form of opinion. Thanks for the laugh.
"... I feel quite similar concerning gay marriage. Now what? Am I the bigot or are you?"
You are, because you're denying rights for monogamous couples based on your personal bias and nothing else.
"WHY do they HAVE to COMPETE for RIGHTS? Just as in gay marriages, those rights would be inclusive (assuming democrats get their way)."
Inclusive to who? The first spouse? All of them? What if they have differing opinions, whose rights win out?
"What YOU don't understand is that ADULTS can make their OWN choices for the type of relationship they want to get into."
Yes, and they can get into a polyamorous relationship if they like, so I'm not standing in anyone's way of anyone's relationship.
"... to handle what --- gay marriage suits?"
Any civil matter.
"... a word you may want to have a relative look up (and not discuss with you) ... 'dementia'"
Again:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"
"... let me use it one more time. Moron, my suggestion isn't what you say, rather it is that everyone has that option."
This is what you posted:".... P.O.A. ... well, that means you think that polygamysts aren't smart enought to create a WILL or designate ONE as their P.O.A.?" So, you're not saying there that polygamists are going to have wills or P.O.A.s? What semantic game do you plan to play to pull off that little trick?
"Religion relies on faith, which is a form of opinion." ... But, religion is based in fact. And you asked for my fact based reason to oppose abortion. I gave it to you and now you are changing the subject.
Delete"You are, because you're denying rights for monogamous couples based on your personal bias and nothing else." ... You are denying rights for polygamous relationships based on the VERY SAME THING and NOTHING ELSE. That makes you a bigot too. Welcome to the club.
"What semantic game do you plan to play to pull off that little trick?" ... Are you kidding? You must be the most moronic moron there is if you can't figure out what was said in that statement. You should stop posting.
"So, you're not saying there that polygamists are going to have wills or P.O.A.s?" ... Thanks, this is the perfect statement to show your inability to read. Hey, gramps, they offer remedial schooling for you type of problem and (of course) the government will foot the bill for you.
No, I said everyone has the opportunity to have a will or POA. At no point did I say "everyone's going to have" one. But, you never know, maybe they all will get one. They just have to be careful not to take up too much court time or you'll forbid them another right (besides only marriage).
I like how you hypocritically will deny consenting adults the right to marriage based simply on your unfounded fears and irrationalities.
"... But, religion is based in fact."
DeleteSo is "Murder in the First", but the movie is mostly fiction. Try this thought on for size:you think your beliefs are "fact", so may someone else of another faith. You can't both be right. Facts aren't relative or subjective. So, religion is not "fact". You asked me for my views on polygamy, then you shifted the standard to "facts", as if I was going to be able to produce a well-documented and vetted study of what would happen if polygamy were to be legalized. That's ludicrous enough without you claiming that your faith-based views are somehow objective.
"... You are denying rights for polygamous relationships based on the VERY SAME THING and NOTHING ELSE."
Nobody needs to have more than one legally-recognized spouse. It's contrary to the entire concept of marriage. Meanwhile, same-sex marriage has the exact same legal dynamic as heterosexual marriage. Let everyone have one designated mate, for legal purposes. Polygamy does not fit that mold. It's different from monogamy. I can, again, evaluate two different things based on their individual merits and come to a conclusion that you think I shouldn't. You have failed to explain how my concerns are not valid, no matter how much or how loudly you stomp your little feet protesting that you have.
"No, I said everyone has the opportunity to have a will or POA. At no point did I say "everyone's going to have" one."
Notice how you put that in quotes, as if I claimed you used those words. No, I mentioned your "suggestion", Mr. Remedial Reading. By making the comment that I thought they weren't "smart enough" to take such measures, you were clearly not saying that they merely had the opportunity, but that they would generally do so. Because they're not stupid. Intelligence has nothing to do with whether or not they have the "opportunity" to do something.
"But, you never know, maybe they all will get one. They just have to be careful not to take up too much court time or you'll forbid them another right (besides only marriage)."
Why would the establishment of wills and P.O.A.s require court time? That's a matter for lawyer's offices, not the bench. What a strange comment that was.
"It's contrary to the entire concept of marriage." ... What is the "entire concept of marriage"? Your beliefs or mine? I know you're getting ready to say that since you believe in 'A' concept of marriage that all other people in the world/nation must adhere to your standards? Of course, you realize that within MY idea of the "concept of marriage" there are no same-sex marriages. YOU are in complete and unwavering support for gay marriage and ALL the reasons you give occur within polygamist relationships, which you are opposed to. In the end, your bigoted pre-conceived notions of a chosen lifestyle (consenting adults/no harm/ ect) are the ONLY reason you have to prevent them from getting "rights" that you seek for another chosen lifestyle (consenting adults/no harm/ ect). That makes you the worst kind of bigot. We might as well start calling you a republican
DeleteIf you're going to change the subject to "the entire concept of marriage" then you should give us your standards so we can make informed responses to your illogical ramblings.
"... What is the "entire concept of marriage"? Your beliefs or mine?"
DeleteMarriage is a legal institution. What would "beliefs" have to do with it?
"Of course, you realize that within MY idea of the "concept of marriage" there are no same-sex marriages."
Yes, because you're viewing it religiously. Unfortunately for you, our government is not religious. It deals in civil matters.
"YOU are in complete and unwavering support for gay marriage and ALL the reasons you give occur within polygamist relationships, which you are opposed to."
No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage. Besides, your opinion that polygamy doesn't cause any problems doesn't magically transfer over to me. Sorry.
"In the end, your bigoted pre-conceived notions of a chosen lifestyle (consenting adults/no harm/ ect) are the ONLY reason you have to prevent them from getting "rights" that you seek for another chosen lifestyle (consenting adults/no harm/ ect). That makes you the worst kind of bigot."
Similar to what I just said, your conclusion that homosexuality is "chosen" doesn't magically apply to my viewpoint. You can't judge me based on an inconsistency which contains your idea instead of mine. Well, a sensible person can't, anyway.
"If you're going to change the subject to "the entire concept of marriage" then you should give us your standards so we can make informed responses to your illogical ramblings."
We're talking about marriage, but the basis for legal marriage is off-topic? And that's supposed to show how you're logical?
"No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage." ... so now you're concerned about "traditional marriage". News flash: gay marriage isn't "traditional" either. Which makes gay marriage not within the same "dynamic" as "traditional marriage". CREATING problems and a legal quagmire in the court system.
Delete"Similar to what I just said, your conclusion that homosexuality is "chosen" doesn't magically apply to my viewpoint." ... interesting position for you to take. How are you able to determine that the "choice" of polygamist behaviors isn't caused by the same thing that you say causes homosexual behaviors?
"We're talking about marriage, but the basis for legal marriage is off-topic?" ... I didn't say "off topic". I said "change the subject". LOL
you might want to get a stronger prescription for those bi-focals, gramps.
"... so now you're concerned about "traditional marriage". News flash: gay marriage isn't "traditional" either. Which makes gay marriage not within the same "dynamic" as "traditional marriage""
DeleteI didn't say it was "traditional", but both involve two consenting adults. There's no adaptation required by the law, because it's not introducing any new scenarios.
"CREATING problems and a legal quagmire in the court system."
How are you still on this when you've only demonstrated the fight for gay marriage as an example? Which would end once gay marriage is established as law? It doesn't qualify as a "quagmire" anyway, you're just spewing out phrases without any sense of understanding them.
"... interesting position for you to take. How are you able to determine that the "choice" of polygamist behaviors isn't caused by the same thing that you say causes homosexual behaviors?"
I don't care. It's not relevant, the same way it's not relevant if pedophilia is a choice or not. Polygamy isn't acceptable either way, so anyone who really feels a need to have multiple partners can stick to polyamory.
"... I didn't say "off topic". I said "change the subject". LOL"
What was it you said about semantics, again? You just surrendered, unless you can demonstrate a significant difference between those two phrases. To let you know in advance, you can't.
"It's not relevant, the same way it's not relevant if pedophilia is a choice or not. " ... another subject change? I don't think pedophilia has anything to do with either one of the subjects we are talking about. The only thing all three have in common is they are sexual perversions. Which, of course, I am opposed to all of them based on that.
Delete"Which would end once gay marriage is established as law?" ... the fact they are occurring now is proof positive that gay marriage demands have clogged the court system for the past 20+ years and you find it acceptable, yet refuse to allow polygamy based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the court system may get clogged. You bring no proof or evidence to support your opinion. No studies that show potential court cases ... nothing. So you are basing your denial of marriage rights to ONE group of people on your bigoted hate of an alternative lifestyle. Because ALL the other reasons you give have all been shown to apply to gay marriage .. which you fully support.
"unless you can demonstrate a significant difference between those two phrases. " ... Topic is "human sexuality is complicated". Subject was 'government sanctioning of alternative marriages'. You've gone from 'concept of marriage' to 'traditional marriage' to 'legal marriage'. Dancing around like you're at a hillbilly hoe-down without explaining what you mean by any of those. Other than saying that since you don't approve of polygamy it is OK for 'the state' to deny them marriage rights.
"... another subject change?"
DeleteNo, it's called a "comparison". I didn't ask you about pedophilia, did I? I only mentioned it once. It's to illustrate a point. Try to relax.
" ... the fact they are occurring now is proof positive that gay marriage demands have clogged the court system for the past 20+ years and you find it acceptable..."
The mere fact that people are fighting for rights is "proof positive" that they've "clogged" the court system? Substantiation for that hyperbole, please. And it's truly bizarre to suggest that what's entailed in the struggle for rights is a reason not to fight for rights. Should women not strive for equal pay because it's time-consuming? To apply that sort of belief to me as if it determines hypocrisy is abysmally stupid.
"...yet refuse to allow polygamy based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the court system may get clogged. You bring no proof or evidence to support your opinion. No studies that show potential court cases ... nothing."
What studies would possibly exist for a hypothetical? And since when has that ever been needed? Anytime a law is proposed, potential pitfalls are noted. You don't need someone else to validate it through a process which you can't even explain. Would you like to try? If you're going to criticize me for it, then you should be able to provide a viable alternative. That's fair.
"... Topic is "human sexuality is complicated". Subject was 'government sanctioning of alternative marriages'. You've gone from 'concept of marriage' to 'traditional marriage' to 'legal marriage'."
Who brought up "polygamy", you or me? Answer:" ... no inconsistency. What "harm" comes from marriage where the husband has multiple wives?" So, if the topic is the title of the article, didn't you change the subject? What, specifically, is the difference between "topic" and "subject"? As for your inability to understand different elements of a conversation, none of the things you mentioned are changing the subject, since they're all part of the same discussion. You really want to talk about a legal institution without mentioning it's "legal", the "concept" that legality is based on, or to be able to contrast anything to gay marriage by designating it as "traditional"? That's very restrictive and controlling of you. By all means, continue to believe that you have some sort of authority over me to the point that I'm not allowed to talk about even one subject, as that really makes you look rational (sarcasm).
"What studies would possibly exist for a hypothetical?" ... exactly. So your fears about clogged court systems is purely based on opinion and your bigoted fear of a lifestyle you don't approve of. It's good to know that republicans aren't the only bigots in America.
Delete"That's very restrictive and controlling of you." ... As far as "traditional marriage" is concerned. How can you support gay marriage if one of your main concerns is keeping the "traditional marriage" in place? If you're going to use that as an argument against polygamy, then you cannot use it for gay marriage. While I understand you're a democrat, but that would be even too crazed even for one of your ilk to do. Although the hypocrisy would be fully and completely expected (and experienced).
Besides, you still need to offer an acceptable and logical explanation for your stances as outlined here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362270817518#c1754138606611771270 You embarrassed yourself in your first attempt. Now, how about a real answer that actually addresses your failures of being a hypocrite.
"... exactly. So your fears about clogged court systems is purely based on opinion and your bigoted fear of a lifestyle you don't approve of."
DeleteSo, you demand evidence that you know can't possibly exist. That seems odd. How do you ever imagine being able to evaluate a new law, then? Also, let's recall your own words:"Just how far are you allowed to go to achieve "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"? There are plenty of other sexual choices (preferences as you call them), out there, that would love to demand the same rights you expect for gays. Are you going to give others the same rights you demand of ONE particular sexual deviance (preference) simply because you think they are cute?" So, you're worried that other "choices" are going to get rights, when you have no studies to show how that's going to happen. How is that concern valid, by your stated standards here?
"... As far as "traditional marriage" is concerned."
I was talking about your claims of changing the subject, not your opinion on marriage. Nice try at dodging your previous semantics.
"How can you support gay marriage if one of your main concerns is keeping the "traditional marriage" in place?"
As always, you have trouble with context:"No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage." "Traditional marriage" is in contrast to your citation of "gay marriage", hence it's another way of saying "heterosexual marriage".
"Besides, you still need to offer an acceptable and logical explanation for your stances as outlined here..."
You're attributing "no harm" to my views on polygamy. Where did I say that? Again, you can't inject your views into my arguments and call me a hypocrite for it. By that standard, I could call you a hypocrite for opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. Any differences you cite I can deny out of hand. After all, that's all you've done for mine. Remember 50-100 people? You never said where you got that number, or why it wouldn't increase after making polygamy legal and giving people the ability to fleece the government. You never addressed the question about a wife's second husband inheriting the first husband's estate. You've been hung up on "court time" as if it's the only thing I ever mentioned, because you somehow think you have a brilliant point that fighting for rights takes up court time as well. As I said, there are many aspects to marriage, with many ramifications. What about divorce, child support and visitation? That gets complicated enough just with marriage as it is. And since I've seen your pattern of knee-jerk "but gay marriage" responses, none of these concerns apply to that. You say they're the same, because you're desperate to prove that you're not the only bigot here. Your opinion is not my responsibility, and it doesn't make my views inconsistent.
Where's your evidence of gay marriage clogging the court system, by the way? Decided to run away from that one?
"So, you demand evidence that you know can't possibly exist." ... I demand proof of your claims of what will happen. If you don't have that proof, then those are just your unfounded/irrational bigoted fears. And, that kind of reaction is not welcome in an honest conversation.
Delete"So, you're worried that other "choices" are going to get rights, when you have no studies to show how that's going to happen." ... It's called the "slippery slope" argument. You democrats use it all the time to promote your fearmongering. Only a moron wouldn't know what was meant by that.
"By that standard, I could call you a hypocrite for opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty." ... Completely different scenario and wild strawman attempt to change the subject again. Only a moron wouldn't know the difference.
"You never addressed the question about a wife's second husband inheriting the first husband's estate. " ... You never asked that. However, how is it handled now? That's how it would be handled in the future.
"Where's your evidence of gay marriage clogging the court system, by the way? Decided to run away from that one?" ... You're a BLIND moron too? AND, you live in denial.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=cases+for+gay+marriage+in+courts&oq=gay+marriage+in+courts&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i5i30j0i8i30j0i22l2.1960.6234.0.10778.22.15.0.6.6.0.192.1987.2j13.15.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.5.psy-ab.o-cDAlTZqHg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43148975,d.cGE&fp=6a9f4e80b80a2090&biw=1918&bih=855
Obviously, if you can't find any court cases on gay marriage and deny they are present, then you are a complete moron and not worthy of honest discussion. You are a lying, racist, bigot and you defend your posture as if it is the way all people should be. Want an example of how clueless you are? Here:
"As I said, there are many aspects to marriage, with many ramifications. What about divorce, child support and visitation? And since I've seen your pattern of knee-jerk "but gay marriage" responses, none of these concerns apply to that." ... YOU think child raising/ divorce and visitation rights don't apply to gay marriage??? You are a complete loon
Unless you grow a brain and start posting honestly, I'll ignore you future posts. It's been fun showing what lying hypocritical bigots you democrats are. Is there one among you who speaks truth?
" ... I demand proof of your claims of what will happen."
DeleteProof that couldn't possibly exist. And again, since when has that ever been the standard when discussing a change in law?
"... It's called the "slippery slope" argument. You democrats use it all the time to promote your fearmongering. Only a moron wouldn't know what was meant by that."
I know all about that fallacy. Are you aware you're referencing your own argument when talking about it?
"... Completely different scenario and wild strawman attempt to change the subject again. Only a moron wouldn't know the difference."
I'm not trying to change the subject, unless you really want me to prove how I can use the same tactics you do to define you as a hypocrite. I'm glad to oblige.
"... You never asked that."
Wrong. March 2, 9:26 a.m. (not that long ago):"Here's one for you:if you die in a car accident and your wife dies two hours later from complications from the accident, and your wife happened to have another husband that you didn't even know about, does that man have a legal claim on your property? If not, why not?"
"However, how is it handled now? That's how it would be handled in the future."
Considering polygamy is illegal, how would that problem come up now?
"Obviously, if you can't find any court cases on gay marriage and deny they are present, then you are a complete moron and not worthy of honest discussion."
Speaking of "honest discussion", where did I say there weren't "any" court cases? You said "clogged", remember?
"YOU think child raising/ divorce and visitation rights don't apply to gay marriage???"
How would they apply any differently than heterosexual marriage? You want people to "choose" to be straight, so that would mean they would add to the divorce/visitation statistics anyway. Further, is it more common for heterosexual couples to have children, or for gay couples to have an adoption or insemination for lesbian couples? So, if anything, that issue is less prounounced than it is for straight couples, never mind someone with, say, six wives and twenty kids. See what I was saying about knee-jerk reactions? You obviously didn't think about that for even a second.
"Unless you grow a brain and start posting honestly, I'll ignore you future posts."
You just run as far away as what makes you feel safe and warm.
"Proof that couldn't possibly exist." ... Right. You can't use a 'possibility of something happening' as a reason to refuse marriage rights to someone when there is no possibility of something happening. Since there is no possibility of polygamy clogging up the court system, you can't use that as a reason to deny them the same marriage rights you seek for gays.
Delete"Are you aware you're referencing your own argument when talking about it?" ... Which is why I am against both deviances. You, on the other hand, are being majorly hypocritical and bigoted in your reasoning for denying marriage rights to polygamists.
" If not, why not?" ... You're asking me to explain what to do in cases that will not even happen? How is that helpful in a discussion on marriage rights?
"You said "clogged", remember?" ... Factually, YOU brought "clogged" into the discussion
"So, if anything, that issue is less prounounced than it is for straight couples, never mind someone with, say, six wives and twenty kids." ... Stop, please stop. Your feargmongering bigotness is showing. That statement is no different than if someone said: "I don't want gay marriage because they do icky things that I'm afraid of". You are such a bigot.
"You just run as far away as what makes you feel safe and warm." ... You wish. I'm having fun pointing out your hypocrisy and hatefulness and how you are a bigot. The funny part is watching you backtrack and change the subject each time you get flustered with truths and facts. I've noticed that many democrats have a serious problem with "truth and facts".
"... Right. You can't use a 'possibility of something happening' as a reason to refuse marriage rights to someone when there is no possibility of something happening. Since there is no possibility of polygamy clogging up the court system, you can't use that as a reason to deny them the same marriage rights you seek for gays."
DeleteSorry, but your assertion that "there is no possibility" is utterly worthless. You can't deny the complications with anything substantial.
"Which is why I am against both deviances."
So, you admit that your earlier quote was a slippery slope, while not explaining how I'm doing the same just by pointing out problems with legalizing multiple spouses. Can you clarify that at all?
"... You're asking me to explain what to do in cases that will not even happen?"
Why would they not happen? Do you have some imagined version of the law that would prevent it? Or is that just another baseless assertion?
"... Factually, YOU brought "clogged" into the discussion"
Regarding polygamy. You made the claim regarding gay marriage, and you fail to bring evidence of something that actually could exist while chastising me for not bringing evidence that couldn't possibly exist.
"That statement is no different than if someone said: "I don't want gay marriage because they do icky things that I'm afraid of". You are such a bigot."
I invite you to be more specific. I'm not supposed to mention the possiblity of people having multiple wives and children in a discussion of polygamy, all of a sudden?
" ... You wish."
I don't care. You're the one who talked about ignoring my posts, so that's what I was addressing. I'm perfectly fine with smacking you around as long as you want to take it.
"The funny part is watching you backtrack and change the subject each time you get flustered with truths and facts."
What backtracking? And what "truths and facts" are you supposedly presenting? All you have is your convenient and self-serving opinion.
And regarding "hatefulness", note that you haven't brought any evidence of "harm" that you claim homosexuality carries with it. For one thing, you clinging to a prejudiced belief you can't support is clearly hateful. For another, I'm asking for an argument against gay marriage. I've been practically begging for a valid one for years, just because nobody ever brings one. There's no legal basis for such a denial. If there was one, I'd oppose gay marriage, and say (like I do regarding polyamory) that people could just live together and deal with it.
But that's not the case. The fact that you, and so many other brainless bigots like you can't give a valid reason why the state should not sanction gay marriage is why I support it. And the fact that there are obvious reasons why the state should not sanction polygamy is why I oppose legalizing polygamy. It's called "objectivity", which is a concept your prejudiced mind has, seemingly, never even attempted to embrace.
Do I seem scared of you at all? You wish.
"Regarding polygamy. You made the claim regarding gay marriage, and you fail to bring evidence of something that actually could exist while chastising me for not bringing evidence that couldn't possibly exist." ... Exactly my point. You expect me to bring that evidence (BTW, I did that already) but you refuse to bring your evidence of clodded court systems regarding polygamy. Why can you not bring that evidence? I brought mine, you should bring yours.
Delete"And what "truths and facts" are you supposedly presenting?" .. Well, I brought the undisputed facts of the reasons you give for supporting gay marriage while denying that polygamy has the same claim to rights you demand for gay marriage. I brought the facts of clogged court systems caused by the gay marriage issue (you brought none of clogged court systems caused by polygamy).
"The fact that you, and so many other brainless bigots like you can't give a valid reason why the state should not sanction gay marriage is why I support it." ... TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. You used that VERY reason to deny polygamy an equal footing for claims to marriage rights, as you are for homosexuality. So it MUST be a "valid" reason.
Delete" ... Exactly my point. You expect me to bring that evidence (BTW, I did that already) but you refuse to bring your evidence of clodded court systems regarding polygamy."
DeleteThat's your point? That you claimed something as being actually true, while not recognizing the concept of a hypothetical? I told you a couple of days ago to look that word up. Your laziness in that regard is not my fault.
" .. Well, I brought the undisputed facts of the reasons you give for supporting gay marriage while denying that polygamy has the same claim to rights you demand for gay marriage."
So, you quoted me. That's impressive work (sarcasm).
"I brought the facts of clogged court systems caused by the gay marriage issue (you brought none of clogged court systems caused by polygamy)."
You gave me a google search of court cases. Where did anyone in any link say anything similar to "clogged"? And, again, you're confusing reality with potential reality. Like asking how polygamous probate cases are handled in court now, which doesn't happen exactly because it's not legal. Also, where's the support for your "backtrack" claim?
"TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. You used that VERY reason to deny polygamy an equal footing for claims to marriage rights,as you are for homosexuality. So it MUST be a "valid" reason."
No, I used "traditional marriage" as a synonym for heterosexual marriage. As opposed to gay marriage. In other words, if I was fighting for "traditional marriage", I wouldn't be supporting gay marriage, which I obviously do as you mention it quite often. The point of using the phrase is that there are no new legal issues that come up from gay marriage, because the framework is the same as it is for heterosexual couples.
You failed to answer my questions regarding why I'm not supposed to mention that polygamists would have multiple spouses, why the probate case would not happen, or what substantiation you have to say that any such complications would not happen. You seem to be winding down a bit. Maybe you should just post "Bigot!!!" all by itself, because that seems to make you feel better about yourself, and that seems to be your purpose here, instead of engaging in a rational dialogue.
I suspect you're going to be on this "traditional" kick for a while, so I'll post this now (and every time you bring it up henceforth):
DeleteYou:"YOU are in complete and unwavering support for gay marriage and ALL the reasons you give occur within polygamist relationships, which you are opposed to."
Me:"No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage."
See that? The principle is the same. That's what I'm arguing for, not "traditional marriage", the term clearly being used as a contrast to "gay marriage".
So no, "traditional marriage" is not a valid reason, any more than it was for people who opposed mixed-faith or mixed-race marriages.
"That you claimed something as being actually true, while not recognizing the concept of a hypothetical?" ... I recognize a hypothetical, it's just that it has to be an realistic hypothetical. Can you bring one of those? Polygamy has been legal at times in our existence ... bring the evidence that polygamy will "clog the court systems". I say you made that up. Because you cannot bring any evidence that polygamy will clog the court systems. It hasn't before and it won't later. You lose again!
Delete"You gave me a google search of court cases. Where did anyone in any link say anything similar to "clogged"?" ... Did you pay attention to how MANY links were available for court cases involving gay marriage? No, I guess you didn't. That way you can continue to live in denial.
"See that? The principle is the same." .. No it isn't. Bring one example of gay marriage being included in the definition of "traditional marriage". Just one example.
"So no, "traditional marriage" is not a valid reason," ... flip flopper
"... I recognize a hypothetical, it's just that it has to be an realistic hypothetical."
DeleteOh, so now all the demands for facts were made because...? Also, I've brought examples of potential complications, you haven't explained even once why...let me say that again, why they would not be likely to occur. Have people stopped being jealous and greedy? Do people not take advantage of opportunities anymore? When did this tremendous shift in human behavior take place, exactly?
"I say you made that up."
You say that as if a prediction is objectively verifiable.
"It hasn't before and it won't later."
Before, specifically when? Biblical times? Are the times you're referencing at all comparable to the today, considering all the systems we have in place?
" ... Did you pay attention to how MANY links were available for court cases involving gay marriage?"
Do you pay attention to how many links appear for anything you search? So what? How many of those are redundant? Do you really want to pretend that every single link is even relevant, much less uniquely so?
" .. No it isn't. Bring one example of gay marriage being included in the definition of "traditional marriage". Just one example."
How about you actually read what I wrote:"No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage." How does that imply that gay marriage is supposed to be in the definition of traditional marriage? Let me answer for you, to save you precious time:it doesn't. This is especially obvious since I've already said, and demonstrated, that I was using it as a synonym for heterosexual marriage. So, absurdly, you're asking for an example of how gay marriage fits into the definition of heterosexual marriage. Try to take a few deep breaths and figure out what the hell you're talking about.
" I've brought examples of potential complications, you haven't explained even once why...let me say that again, why they would not be likely to occur." ... Wrong. You've brought examples of your hate and fearmongering. I asked you where is the evidence of "clogged court systems" caused by polygamy, you brought NO evidence. I have to assume that you think polygamy has NEVER occurred before now and ALL court cases would be the first time heard. But, I really don't think you're that stupid (but I don't know for sure).
Delete"Before, specifically when?" ... Why don't you start in the 80's. Your strawman argument that I'm talking about Biblical times is weak ... very weak. So, are you going to bring some examples of court cases caused by polygamy that equate to "clogging the system"? Well, are you?
"How about you actually read what I wrote:"No, because the principle I've always used involves two consenting adults, since that's the same dynamic as traditional marriage." " ... It is NOT the same "dynamic" as traditional marriage. How do you equate 'one man + one woman' as being equal to gay marriage? THAT dynamic is NOT present and therefore gay marriage is NOT the same dynamic in ANY way to heterosexual marriage.
Now, you have NOTHING to argue against polygamy (other than your bigotry) since it involves consenting adults, no harm, L/L/POH, and no court cases clogging the system.
"Do you pay attention to how many links appear for anything you search? So what?" ... You give up easily, don't you? All you have to do is google polygamy and bring me a list of court cases that are "clogging up the system". You say it WILL happen (no hypothetical), and since polygamy has been in the US since ... oooo .. the 1800's(?) why don't you link just a couple of those terrible court cases that are clogging the system. I'm sure you can find at least ONE. Maybe you'll find TWO where the multiple wives are fighting over who gets what after he dies. How about one of those cases involving the 20 kids you say all polygamists pop out. I think you need to bring some facts to support your bigoted fearmongering. Just bring SOMETHING that shows even a miniscule increase in court cases. Please bring something that backs up your fears of something different.
DeleteHere's how it works:
No evidence = you are a major hypocrite and bigot and liar and fearmonger
Evidence = still a bigot and hypocrite for denying a chosen sexual perversion the right to marriage
"... Wrong. You've brought examples of your hate and fearmongering."
DeleteYou're proving my point. You've never explained why they're not valid concerns, you just make empty assertions. And considering you chastised me for saying that polygamists will have multiple spouses, your definition of "hate and fearmongering" is highly questionable.
"I asked you where is the evidence of "clogged court systems" caused by polygamy, you brought NO evidence."
Because it's a hypothetical. Polygamy isn't legal, so what court cases do you expect to see? You can't answer that, because it would make you admit the dishonesty of your demands.
"... Why don't you start in the 80's. Your strawman argument that I'm talking about Biblical times is weak ... very weak."
Where was polygamy legal in the 1980's? There's no "strawman" from asking you a simple question. Your phrasing of "in our existence" is a major red flag that what you're driving at is not relevant to modern times. Feel free to explain instead of dealing in vagueness.
"... It is NOT the same "dynamic" as traditional marriage. How do you equate 'one man + one woman' as being equal to gay marriage?"
The phrase used in that regard was "two consenting adults". If you could read, you would know that already. Legally, it works exactly the same, and you can't dispute that with anything substantive.
" ... You give up easily, don't you? All you have to do is google polygamy and bring me a list of court cases that are "clogging up the system"."
How did you go from talking about your failure to provide evidence of a "quagmire" (as if even what you claimed proved that) regarding gay marriage to talking about polygamy? Do you think that all the results from the google search you gave me are unique, or not? It's not a trick question.
"No evidence = you are a major hypocrite and bigot and liar and fearmonger
Evidence = still a bigot and hypocrite for denying a chosen sexual perversion the right to marriage"
Now that's funny. By your words, even if there's an objective problem with polygamy, I'm a "bigot" for saying there shouldn't be legal polygamy. Wow. Does that apply to your charges of "harm" regarding homosexuality? You claim you have good reasons, but I can still call you a bigot even if I accept them?
What a perfect admission that you have no interest in reasoned conversation. Bravo, jackass, bravo.
"You've never explained why they're not valid concerns, you just make empty assertions." ... Yes, I have. I've asked for a simple link to any proof of your claims that polygamy will start a rash of lawsuits by multiple wives vieing over the financial prospects of the husband.
DeleteNow, here's the tricky part, since polygamy has been in the US since the 1800's(?) can you show the extensive lawsuit problem that you fear will happen? Obviously, since that is your great fear, then the problem HAD to have happened at some point during history. Now, can you show it will "clog the court system"?
My personal opinion is that you cannot show that fear to be valid and you fall back onto another subject change. I can claim ALL kinds of "hypothetical" reasons NOT to allow gay marriage ... but in doing so, it would make me look like a kook. Just sayin
"The phrase used in that regard was "two consenting adults". " ... Yes, I know that. I've said before that you are now 'limiting' the people allowed to get married based on a number game. You kind of let that one slip by for some reason. It's good you focus on that now, though. It could teach us a lot regarding hypocrisy.
"It's not a trick question." ... The problem is that I brought irrefutable eveidence and you brought none.
"Now that's funny. By your words, even if there's an objective problem with polygamy, I'm a "bigot" for saying there shouldn't be legal polygamy." ... No, what's funny is that YOU are using "made up" reasons to find a problem with polygamy, while I do not.
"... Yes, I have. I've asked for a simple link to any proof of your claims that polygamy will start a rash of lawsuits by multiple wives vieing over the financial prospects of the husband."
DeleteAgain, you claim that you understand what a hypothetical is, then you insist on evidence that can't possibly exist. Besides that, the court activity is far from the only concern I expressed, as you damn well know. So, no, you have not explained why my concerns are not valid. No matter how many times you desperately try to make your idiotic assertion, I will not let it stand. As long as I'm alive and have internet access, I will refute you every single time. Something for you to bear in mind.
"Now, here's the tricky part, since polygamy has been in the US since the 1800's(?)"
Why do I have to keep asking you where legal polygamy has existed? If you're talking about people who are breaking the law, then they're not likely to go to court when the marriage is legally invalid and a criminal act. So, again, what the hell are you talking about?
"I can claim ALL kinds of "hypothetical" reasons NOT to allow gay marriage ... but in doing so, it would make me look like a kook."
I'd love to hear those. They can't possibly have anything to do with legal quandries, so they're not going to be relevant.
"... Yes, I know that."
Then your questions about how the dynamic is the same make no sense.
"I've said before that you are now 'limiting' the people allowed to get married based on a number game. You kind of let that one slip by for some reason."
What the hell does that have to do with the quote you're addressing?
"... The problem is that I brought irrefutable eveidence and you brought none."
First off, you didn't bring any evidence, because you're not showing any adverse affects of an unknown number of court cases. Secondly, you didn't answer the question.
"... No, what's funny is that YOU are using "made up" reasons to find a problem with polygamy, while I do not."
Yes, hypotheticals are, by their nature, "made up". Quit acting as if you understand the word, because it's clearly above your vocabulary level. And as I should have included in the last post, you can't call me a hypocrite for "denying a chosen sexual perversion" because that's your opinion. Again, yours. Meaning, not mine. If I don't homosexuality is a choice, as I clearly do not, then you can't judge me based on the belief that it is a choice. "Hypocrite" is another word you really need to look up, because you consistently use it incorrectly.
"Again, you claim that you understand what a hypothetical is, then you insist on evidence that can't possibly exist." ... Going on that premise: show where that 'possibility' is founded in reality and not just an unfounded fear in your mind.
Delete"... Going on that premise: show where that 'possibility' is founded in reality and not just an unfounded fear in your mind."
DeleteSo you're down to one contention now? You can't address anything else? Good.
Which possibility, I must ask, since you keep pretending there's only one? Here, let's try this from a few posts ago:"Have people stopped being jealous and greedy? Do people not take advantage of opportunities anymore?" Remember how you ran away from the "military benefits" quandry? Because you know full well that people are going to take advantage of that. There's no way to say otherwise without sounding like the early Communists who thought everyone could accept pure equality and not try to get more for themselves. You have to take human nature into account.
You think that even in the best of polygamous relationships, you're not going to have spite and competition between spouses? Seriously? I mean, goddamn seriously? I genuinely want you to answer that question. You're going to give multiple spouses equal rights and just assume that they're going to work it out on their own level. That's outrageously naive. Let's just disband our military while we're at it, because the world should always live in peace, right? Also, try to consider how much time is involved in any court case, and then multiply that based on the number of spouses and lawyers involved.
So, yes, by actually existing on this planet and observing human nature, I have a foundation for saying that people are going to quite often litigate if they don't think something is fair or they think they can take advantage of a situation. This may be part of the reason why we have such a complex and extensive set of laws and tax codes, if you think about it, because so many different angles for personal advantage have been attempted.
Now, as if any of that really had to be explained to you, it's your turn. Please, finally, explain what makes any of that unrealistic. Be specific.
"You have to take human nature into account." ... What's all that got to do with the conversation at hand?
Delete"So you're down to one contention now? " ... Well, it seems to be a critical one. Are you that "kook" or not? Just sayin
"You think that even in the best of polygamous relationships, you're not going to have spite and competition between spouses? Seriously? I mean, goddamn seriously?" ... Sure there will be problems. I have never indicated otherwise. But, it certainly WON'T be anything that you think it will be. All I ask for is a little evidence of the potential for that clogged court system. And the best reply you have is: "goddam seriously?".
"... What's all that got to do with the conversation at hand?"
DeleteWhy would the behavior of people not be taken into account when judging the potential effects of law?
"... Sure there will be problems. I have never indicated otherwise. But, it certainly WON'T be anything that you think it will be."
You haven't indicated otherwise? Why did you mention "50-100 people" when talking about this subject, then? That's pretty severe minimalization. As for your assertion, what is the basis for your claim? Just because you say so? What do you think is supposed to make them refrain, precisely?
"All I ask for is a little evidence of the potential for that clogged court system."
Yet again, we're talking about a hypothetical, so if you have any possible concept of what sort of "evidence" I could possibly provide, I'm eager to hear it. But you don't even understand what human nature has to do with the matter, so your level of conception seems conveniently low.
"And the best reply you have is: "goddam seriously?"."
There was more to the post than that, and you know it. You just can't address it. As I asked before, "what makes any of that unrealistic"? Again, be specific, since your blanket denials are worthless.
"Why would the behavior of people not be taken into account when judging the potential effects of law?" ... Too many variables.
Delete"What do you think is supposed to make them refrain, precisely?" ... Well, they are getting married (theoretically) so I would say that "LOVE" will hold them together. Perhaps your moral expectations are so low that you don't think there are any good people left in the nation?
"... Too many variables."
DeleteThat makes no sense at all. More on that below.
"... Well, they are getting married (theoretically) so I would say that "LOVE" will hold them together. Perhaps your moral expectations are so low that you don't think there are any good people left in the nation?"
So "good people" never do the wrong thing? Who are these people? As for "LOVE", you're unwittingly making one of my arguments for me. Actually, more than one. See, when you're restricted to marrying one person, you're implicitly encouraged to pick someone you love. If you can marry any number of people, then someone can marry who they love and then go to China and bring back twenty Asian brides to America. Love's got nothing to do with the abuses, and that's a big part of the problem. You can't verify "LOVE". The argument that there are good people in the nation doesn't change the fact that people are going to take advantage of the situation.
Now we're going to test your boundaries. Do you think government workers should be able to write their own paychecks? Answer honestly. Because it would seem you would have to approve of that, otherwise "your moral expectations are so low that you don't think there are any good people left in the nation" and you can't possibly predict any problems because there are "too many variables".
So, can I take your answer to that question as "yes", presumably? If not, why the hell not? What "variables" make you think you can't make a decision on that, specifically?
"Love's got nothing to do with the abuses, and that's a big part of the problem." ... What "abuses"? You haven't been able to bring proof of ANY kind of problems that may arise from polygamy. Your bigoted fears do not count.
Delete"If you can marry any number of people, then someone can marry who they love and then go to China and bring back twenty Asian brides to America." AND THIS ONE "You can't verify "LOVE"." ... Let's see, you say "you can't verify love" then you insinuate that YOU can verify when it isn't love. Your bigoted fear of something different isn't allowed to tell others when they are in love or not. YOU cannot (and DO NOT) decide 'who' or 'how many' people fall in love with each other. If someone falls in love with 2 women, your bigoted ars isn't allowed to tell them they can't get married. Your unrealistic fears aren't allowed to make legal decisions. That's what makes you a hypocrite. You will whine about people denying gay marriage based on 'unrealistic fears' then do the same thing yourself concerning another type of marriage. You are a bigot
"Do you think government workers should be able to write their own paychecks?" ... I think bananas on cereal make the cereal taste better. Am I allowed to change the subject too?
I can predict many problems with gay marriage and polygamy. Does that mean BOTH should NOT be allowed? I can tell what it does mean. It means that when enough people lower their moral standards then polygamy will be allowed just like gay marriage. You just proved my point about lowered moral standards. You've got em and you deny it, yet your support/denial of marriage rights based on bigotry show that you are a hypocrite on this issue.
"What "abuses"? You haven't been able to bring proof of ANY kind of problems that may arise from polygamy."
DeleteYou already said you don't deny problems, you just don't agree on the scope. Now you're back to demaning "proof" for a hypothetical. Would you like to keep playing ping-pong with yourself, or could you possibly solidify your position?
"... Let's see, you say "you can't verify love" then you insinuate that YOU can verify when it isn't love. Your bigoted fear of something different isn't allowed to tell others when they are in love or not."
I'm not planning on telling specific people that they're not in love, doofus. The point is that if polygamy shoots up three thousand percent, it's a damn safe bet that a large chunk of those people aren't being sincere. Do you deny that, really?
"Your unrealistic fears aren't allowed to make legal decisions."
Sorry, you don't get to say "unrealistic" until you answer my question as to what, specifically makes them unrealistic. You've been avoiding that.
"You will whine about people denying gay marriage based on 'unrealistic fears' then do the same thing yourself concerning another type of marriage."
Where did I say "unrealistic fears", and in what context?
"... I think bananas on cereal make the cereal taste better. Am I allowed to change the subject too?"
Bad move. You wanted to test my convictions on another thread, remember? That's what I'm doing here. So, if you think you can test me but refuse to be tested yourself, that's hypocritical. Maybe you should reconsider, since you rail against hypocrisy so fervently.
"I can predict many problems with gay marriage and polygamy. Does that mean BOTH should NOT be allowed?"
That depends. What problems do you predict with gay marriage? This hasn't been explained, so your question can't be answered.
"It means that when enough people lower their moral standards then polygamy will be allowed just like gay marriage."
Because people who have been fighting for the principle of two consenting adults are going to suddenly and en masse forget about the word "two"? It seems unlikely.
"You just proved my point about lowered moral standards. You've got em and you deny it, yet your support/denial of marriage rights based on bigotry show that you are a hypocrite on this issue."
How are you claiming I proved your point? You've always declared yourself morally superior, and I don't see how anything I could ever say is going to change that. I'm also unsure how it's supposed to make sense that while I've always supported gay rights, that proves that I'm going to change my views on polygamy. I haven't changed my views on gay rights, so...? Please explain.
The real truth here is that there is no objective argument against gay marriage, and that drives you bonkers. As I said, if there was one, I wouldn't support gay marriage. A lot of other people wouldn't, either. But that's not the case. You have to pretend that it's about "lowered moral standards" because you can't make an objective argument against it, and you have to make a false equivalence to polygamy in order to make yourself feel better about your bigotry.
You might as well be a pane of glass, you're so easy to see through. Feel free to explain your predicted problems with gay marriage if you want to counter any of that. I know you can't, of course.
"You already said you don't deny problems, you just don't agree on the scope. Now you're back to demaning "proof" for a hypothetical." ... Well, let's see, now you're back to changing the goal posts (problems/abuses). So, yes, provide proof of the potential fear you have of an alternative lifestyle. Because, at the end of the day, that's all it is ... is a different 'alternative lifestyle' than gay marriage, right? Only you support one but deny the other (kind of hypocritical even from your prospective) using bigoted reasons.
Delete"The point is that if polygamy shoots up three thousand percent ... " ... and that number comes from WHERE?!?
"Sorry, you don't get to say "unrealistic" until you answer my question as to what, specifically makes them unrealistic. You've been avoiding that." ... Because you haven't been able to show a viable possiblility of that happening. I've already said that, but you live in denial and can't (or won't) read it.
"Bad move. You wanted to test my convictions on another thread, remember? That's what I'm doing here." ... do it on another thread then.
"This hasn't been explained, so your question can't be answered." ... Again, yes I did address that, you just choose to ignore what is said.
"Because people who have been fighting for the principle of two consenting adults are going to suddenly and en masse forget about the word "two"? It seems unlikely." ... Gosh, it seems just 40 years ago, people were saying the same thing about gay marriage. Can anyone say "barometer morals"?
"You've always declared yourself morally superior, ..." ... I HAVE NOT! I have declared myself morally "consistant". If those two words mean the same thing in your world then I'm guilty as charged. Otherwise, you're a moron.
"As I said, if there was one, I wouldn't support gay marriage." ... Yes, you would. You're a democrat and that's the way they do things: AS THEY ARE TOLD. Your ilk have no indepentant thinking minds, you simply do as you are told.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"... Well, let's see, now you're back to changing the goal posts (problems/abuses)."
DeleteThere's a difference between "problems" and "abuses" in this context? Sounds like semantics, unless you can back that up.
"So, yes, provide proof of the potential fear you have of an alternative lifestyle."
I'm still waiting for you to explain what kind of proof there can be of a hypothetical. Especially since you admit problems will exist. It's also hard to take you seriously when you brush off the entire concept of human nature.
"Because, at the end of the day, that's all it is ... is a different 'alternative lifestyle' than gay marriage, right? Only you support one but deny the other (kind of hypocritical even from your prospective) using bigoted reasons."
Is pedophilia an 'alternative lifestyle'? Do I need to explain the reasons that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government? You haven't explained what specifically is unrealistic about my concerns, so your "bigoted" claims are hollow. I'll point out, again, that they're even more so since you called me a bigot for pointing out that a polygamous relationship would involve multiple spouses.
"... and that number comes from WHERE?!?"
Look up the word "if". Besides that, you've never denied that there would be a problem with people taking advantage of military benefits. If you really don't think that it would shoot up by that percentage based on that aspect alone, you need to check into rehab.
"... Because you haven't been able to show a viable possiblility of that happening."
You admit that there would be problems, remember?
"... do it on another thread then."
Excuse me, I wasn't aware that your principles changed from one thread to another. How does that work, exactly?
"... Gosh, it seems just 40 years ago, people were saying the same thing about gay marriage."
Oh my. People were arguing for "two consenting adults", and now it's transformed to "two consenting adults"? What a shocking downward spiral we're on.
"... I HAVE NOT! I have declared myself morally "consistant"."
You've talked about my "lowered moral standards", genius. In contrast to you, ergo you would have higher moral standards. Besides that, you don't think "consistant" is better? You think "barometer morals" aren't worse than being consistent? Give me a break.
"... Yes, you would. You're a democrat and that's the way they do things: AS THEY ARE TOLD."
Prove it. Otherwise, you're a bigot. Check and mate.
This bit of hilarity also needs to be pointed out:"... I HAVE NOT!"
DeleteCombined with:"... Yes, you would. You're a democrat and that's the way they do things: AS THEY ARE TOLD."
So, while we're talking about what you consider to be a moral issue, you don't claim to have better morals, but you claim that I follow some monolithic force mindlessly. I supposedly don't analyze morals at all on my own, but at the same time I'm not morally inferior to you. Is that really supposed to make sense? You must think very lowly of your own morals if an obedient robot is on the same level as you.
Hilarious.
Also:"You will whine about people denying gay marriage based on 'unrealistic fears' then do the same thing yourself concerning another type of marriage."
DeleteI asked for you to cite my use of "unrealistic fears". Why didn't you do that?
You also didn't list the problems you foresee with gay marriage, nor did you explain how my consistent views on both gay marriage and polygamy are supposedly proof that people will start supporting polygamy. Do better.
"Is pedophilia an 'alternative lifestyle'?" ... Yes. Are you changing the subject again?
Delete"Do I need to explain the reasons that shouldn't be sanctioned by the government?" ... No, you don't. I know that causing "harm" is one of your concerns, so that alternative lifestyle would not be considered equal to homosexuality or polygamy (unless we are talking immorality, then they are the same). But, legally, there are many problems: harm, consenting adults, L/L/POH.
So, I don't know WHY you would even bring that subject up unless you have a passion for that kind of action. Or you simply use changing the subject as a signifier that you have given up.
"If you really don't think that it would shoot up by that percentage based on that aspect alone, you need to check into rehab." ... Rehab here I come. I don't think there are going to be more than a 50 people seeking polygamy rights anyway, so what would I care if there is a 3,000% jump in court cases? What would that take the court cases to? Well, let's do the math: there are 0 cases currently pending concerning the bigoted fears that barbantio has concerning this alternative lifestyle. If you multiply that by 3000% we get ... 0. Uh, wait, how can you say there will be an increase in court cases if the math simply does NOT support your contentions?
What this does is continue to highlight your bigotry towards a harmless alternative lifestyle where consenting adults practice their form of love, not interfering with anyone else and NOT bothering YOU. However, YOU will refuse their happiness based on irresponsibly bigoted ideals that must be deep inset into your behavior choices, genetic code and environmental influences (meaning you were born a bigot LOL)
"You've talked about my "lowered moral standards", genius. In contrast to you, ergo you would have higher moral standards." .. hey genius, WHEN did I say I was morally superior to you? You don't have to be at the top to be able to see the overall standards are falling. You would be able to see that occurrence from the bottom also. So, when you get done assuming things that were never offered maybe you can actually address concerns that ARE mentioned.
"nor did you explain how my consistent views on ... " ... when you HAVE a consistent view on this subject, then you can expect more answers to your concerns. When you act(?) like a bigot, I don't ask how high when you say jump.
"You must think very lowly of your own morals if an obedient robot is on the same level as you." ... nobody's perfect. I certainly don't claim to be. Perhaps you think you are and that is why none of your statements could ever be wrong. I've noticed you neither retract nor apologize for false statements that you make or irregular beliefs that you hold or unrealistic fears you use. Wow, you might be God Himself if you don't sin at all, huh?
"So, while we're talking about what you consider to be a moral issue, you don't claim to have better morals, but you claim that I follow some monolithic force mindlessly." ... Where did I ever make THAT claim? You are good at making up things aren't you? You make up fears of sexual deviances so you can be a bigot towards one and lifelong friend to the other, then you make up claims that I have made so you can continue your bigotry without actually answering what is asked of you.
DeleteYou know, even a mindless right-winger can tell the difference between me saying 'I notice a change in morals' as opposed to me saying 'your morals are lower than a dead snakes belly'. I guess you aren't smarter than a mindless right-winger. Because, otherwise, you would simply ignore that and move on, because when you make unsubstantiated claims and then whine about those claims there is no need for anyone to defend them other than YOU.
I'm not saying WHERE your morals are (in relation to mine), I'm saying the morals you have constantly change depending on voter feelings and your daily desires.
"What a shocking downward spiral we're on." ... yes, considering that the difference is "man+woman" while now it has degraded to "man+man" or "woman+woman". You see, the number aspect (dynamic) you show so much fear of (in polygamy) has changed in the gay marriage issue also. There is MORE than one man or woman. So, your fear of polygamy based on a number game is grounded in bigoted fear of a sexual deviation that you don't approve of or are scared of.
"There's a difference between "problems" and "abuses" in this context?" ... Yes. But, since I don't make either claim (you do) I am not the one who needs to defend what is being said ... YOU DO. So, YOU need to back up the claims that YOU make and stop attributing them to others. That doesn't seem very honest. Is that the way democrats always act?
"... Yes. Are you changing the subject again?
DeleteNo. I'm pointing out that "alternative lifestyle", even by your definition, doesn't automatically make something acceptable. As for "that kind of action", your insults are predictable and boring.
"I don't think there are going to be more than a 50 people seeking polygamy rights anyway, so what would I care if there is a 3,000% jump in court cases?"
Where, again, do you get "50 people" from? You demand facts, yet you haven't sourced that number. Like I said, you haven't disputed the benefits aspect, but you think people aren't going to take advantage of free money. Right.
"What this does is continue to highlight your bigotry towards a harmless alternative lifestyle where consenting adults practice their form of love, not interfering with anyone else and NOT bothering YOU."
They can practice their form of love without the government sanctioning it. Marry one person, and then have others in the arrangement. It's not the same for homosexuals if they're not allowed one designated partner.
" .. hey genius, WHEN did I say I was morally superior to you?"
When you talk about my lower moral standards.
" ... when you HAVE a consistent view on this subject, then you can expect more answers to your concerns"
I outright dare you to demonstrate where I've changed my views on gay rights. You can't do it, so you can't say that they're inconsistent. So answer the question as to how that suggests a slippery slope.
"I've noticed you neither retract nor apologize for false statements that you make or irregular beliefs that you hold or unrealistic fears you use."
You haven't demonstrated any false statements. You've also been asked to demonstrate inconsistency and why my concerns are unrealistic, and all you do is to repeat "bigot" over and over again. You have no argument to make.
"... Where did I ever make THAT claim?"
You said I would view things as I was told to. What are you attempting to parse here?
"You know, even a mindless right-winger can tell the difference between me saying 'I notice a change in morals' as opposed to me saying 'your morals are lower than a dead snakes belly'."
You know, when you talk about me having "barometer morals", you're not talking about the general population.
"I'm not saying WHERE your morals are (in relation to mine), I'm saying the morals you have constantly change depending on voter feelings and your daily desires."
Of course, you've never demonstrated a change in my morals, so you're basically admitting to being a liar. Besides, you're still saying that I have no moral compass of my own, but somehow that's just as good as being consistent? I'm not buying that, sorry.
"... yes, considering that the difference is "man+woman" while now it has degraded to "man+man" or "woman+woman". You see, the number aspect (dynamic) you show so much fear of (in polygamy) has changed in the gay marriage issue also. There is MORE than one man or woman."
As opposed to what? If you only had one man and no woman, there wouldn't be a relationship. That was hilariously stupid.
"... Yes."
With no explanation as to how, of course. Because you can't provide one.
"But, since I don't make either claim (you do) I am not the one who needs to defend what is being said ... YOU DO."
Bullshit. You still have to defend what you say. You're not special.
Here's something I'm curious about:"I could go into religious reasons why neither would be allowed..." So you think there are religious reasons not to allow polygamy, right? Unless you really support the concept, then you oppose it too. How would it make any sense that I'm supposedly a "bigot" for opposing polygamy on objective, legal grounds, while you oppose it based on a matter of faith? Is that your point, that you're a bigot and you just really, really don't want to feel inferior to me? So you have to twist yourself into knots trying to label me the same?
DeleteYou might as well say so. You admitted to being a bigot by making a blanket condemnation of Democrats and then not substantiating it. See, you can stomp your feet and cry that you're not proving how I'm a bigot, then you admit to being one yourself without me even making an effort to that end. So, keep posting the same baseless drivel. I already won.
"They can practice their form of love without the government sanctioning it." ... and so can gays. Now what was your point again?
Delete"Where, again, do you get "50 people" from?" ... I made it up, just like YOU did with the "3000%". Is there a problem with that?
"When you talk about my lower moral standards." ... God, you're flailing now. That in no way indicates I think I'm better than you. I just make an opinion on where your morals stand in relation to others.
"You said I would view things as I was told to." .. context, pal. You said I "claim that I follow some monolithic force mindlessly", WHERE did I make that claim? Try to pay attention to what is being talked about and what you say, at any given time. It will help you follow along in simple conversations.
"With no explanation as to how, of course." ... Really? You don't know how to use a dictionary? If you want me to provide the definitions of each word, let me know and I will.
"Bullshit. You still have to defend what you say." ... and with that, you continue to refuse to defend YOUR statements. Instead, you attribute YOUR statements to ME and expect to defend them. You're good, I gotta admit. I wish I could attribute statements to YOU (that you didn't make) and expect YOU to defend them. Is that what you expect here?
"How would it make any sense that I'm supposedly a "bigot" for opposing polygamy on objective, legal grounds, while you oppose it based on a matter of faith?" ... because you are NOT bringing any "objective, legal grounds" to oppose polygamy while accepting gay marriage. Remember, you insinuate that "made up numbers" don't count to oppose an alternative lifestyle. Isn't that what you referred to when you asked where I get the "50" number from?
"Is that your point, that you're a bigot and you just really, really don't want to feel inferior to me?" ... Yes, according to the standards that democrats use, I am a bigot for opposing gay marriage based on religious grounds. I have no ineriority complex. I know where I stand. You do not.
"... and so can gays. Now what was your point again?"
DeleteFunny, because I pre-emptively addressed that:"It's not the same for homosexuals if they're not allowed one designated partner." Reading is fundamental.
"... I made it up, just like YOU did with the "3000%". Is there a problem with that?"
Yes, because you stated it as if it was a fact. Meanwhile, I used the word "if", clearly indicating the number was just for demonstrative purposes. Thanks for admitting that, at least.
"... God, you're flailing now. That in no way indicates I think I'm better than you. I just make an opinion on where your morals stand in relation to others."
How does that not indicate a claim of moral superiority? You're not explaining yourself very well.
"You said I "claim that I follow some monolithic force mindlessly", WHERE did I make that claim?"
You're making a distinction without a difference, which is a logical fallacy. You can't explain how the phrase you're harping on means anything other than what you said.
"... Really? You don't know how to use a dictionary?"
The phrase I used was "in this context", remember? Within the scope of this conversation, if you can point out the difference in meaning between "abuses" and "problems", I'd be very impressed. I don't expect you to even try.
"... and with that, you continue to refuse to defend YOUR statements."
Be specific. Your unwillingness to grasp concepts as basic as human nature don't qualify as a failure on my part.
"Instead, you attribute YOUR statements to ME and expect to defend them."
Again, be specific. I find that one especially funny since you've injected your views of "choice" into your analysis of my reasoning.
"... because you are NOT bringing any "objective, legal grounds" to oppose polygamy while accepting gay marriage."
Your knee-jerk denials don't change the nature of my objections. Are you claiming I'm using religious reasoning, or what?
"Remember, you insinuate that "made up numbers" don't count to oppose an alternative lifestyle. Isn't that what you referred to when you asked where I get the "50" number from?"
Um, no. The point of that was you were using that number to brush off concerns about benefits abuses, without explaining where you got the number or, more importantly, why you thought the number would not increase with legalization. I was calling out another in your endless string of baseless assertions.
"... Yes, according to the standards that democrats use, I am a bigot for opposing gay marriage based on religious grounds."
Another lame dodge. Do you oppose polygamy on religious grounds or not? Meanwhile, you'll have to excuse me for not breaking out the violin for you, since you cited the FRC (listed as a hate group) in order to perpetuate your bigoted views of homosexuals. You're not a victim of the "standards that democrats use", you're a victim of your own prejudices and your inability to break free from them.
Let's remember the start for all this:"There are plenty of other sexual choices (preferences as you call them), out there, that would love to demand the same rights you expect for gays. Are you going to give others the same rights you demand of ONE particular sexual deviance (preference) simply because you think they are cute?"
DeleteThe thrust of that is, obviously, that if we legalize gay marriage, then we supposedly have to legalize other things. To which I explain why differences actually make a difference, that accepting one concept based on its merits does not carry over to accepting another concept based on completely different merits.
Obviously that's not the answer you wanted to hear. But you've put yourself in a very convenient position, because if I say polygamy is fine, you'll trumpet that accepting gay marriage led to that or that it's proof of low morals. And if I don't accept polygamy:"It means that when enough people lower their moral standards then polygamy will be allowed just like gay marriage. You just proved my point about lowered moral standards." Wow, I prove your argument either way, huh? That's impressive. If I didn't know you better, I would say that you're not open to rational dialogue, instead preferring to wrap yourself in a cocoon of self-perpetuating beliefs.
But, since I don't want to think the worst of you, let's test your convictions:"I can predict many problems with gay marriage and polygamy." I want to hear the problems with gay marriage. Seriously. What objective issues do you foresee? If you really want to claim a slippery slope, you have to provide that, honestly. Because the only way it works is if there are genuine, demonstrable problems (not religious ones, which are personal and subjective) and society's failure to see or address them leads to society accepting something else that is problematic as well. That should be your argument, if you really have one, instead of defending polygamy in a pathetic attempt to slap a label on me.
Again, do better. If you have a real argument, make it at some point in your life.
"Yes, because you stated it as if it was a fact. Meanwhile, I used the word "if", clearly indicating the number was just for demonstrative purposes. Thanks for admitting that, at least." ... Here is the ENTIRE QUOTE: "Rehab here I come. I don't think there are going to be more than a 50 people seeking polygamy rights anyway, so what would I care if there is a 3,000% jump in court cases?". How is me stating my opinion insinuating "fact"? Any sane person would discount my statement as soon as I said "I think". Oh, never mind.
Delete"You're not explaining yourself very well." ... yes, I'm explaining myself quite well. You may want to consider the 'other' option ;)
"Your knee-jerk denials don't change the nature of my objections." ... Nature? You mean you still don't want to use real reasons to oppose polygamy? You really want to stick to your bigoted viewpoints? Ok, fine with me. I'll keep that in mind as you post.
"The point of that was you were using that number to brush off concerns about benefits abuses, without explaining where you got the number or, more importantly, why you thought the number would not increase with legalization." ... You seem to have left an IMPORTANT word out of that description. If you add the word "possible" between "about" and "benefits" the description would be more accurate. Re-ask the question with that word inserted and I'll answer to it. Otherwise it is an inacurate descruption of the situation at hand.
As far as your concern over the 'increase with legalization', I don't remember what was said. Refresh my memory (I don't want to go back and read what was written). If you have a concern bring it.
"brush off concerns about benefits abuses," ... I thought about that portion of your statement a little more. You are claiming there already ARE abuses that you have a concern about? Or, do you think that once polygamy bacame legal they would magically happen (and cost the public a bundle)? Could you clarify that little bit for me? Maybe bring a little of the actual costs (ooops, potential costs)... just to make sure you know what you're talking about. You know, like a little break down of actual costs of those benefits you worry about and add in all that medical and while you're at it ... oh, wait, don't we have "Obama-care" cow? Are you factoring in those expenses by previous systems or our current system? Come on now, bring a little to the discussion for once ... please.
Delete" ... Here is the ENTIRE QUOTE..."
DeleteNo, this is the quote:"And, how much "drain" on the system can 50-100 people have? (if that is you main concern about the "drain" on the economics of our American financial system)". Note that when you mentioned that number the second time that I asked about it "again".
"... yes, I'm explaining myself quite well."
While you avoid answering the question.
"... Nature? You mean you still don't want to use real reasons to oppose polygamy?"
No, "nature" applied to my "objections", which were based off of legal ramifications. Your response is nonsensical.
"... You seem to have left an IMPORTANT word out of that description. If you add the word "possible" between "about" and "benefits" the description would be more accurate."
No, because the word "concerns" addresses that. Since the entire nature of the discussion is hypothetical, "concerns" implies "possible". So your objection is invalid.
"As far as your concern over the 'increase with legalization', I don't remember what was said."
Without looking, I can tell you that the concern is that if you give people the option to have multiple spouses, and the government is obligated to give benefits to spouses, then obviously people who have never even thought about polygamy are going to suddenly have multiple spouses who happened to need those benefits. Your response was about how I supposedly thought there weren't any good people left in the country, or some such strawman argument. I hope that helps.
"You are claiming there already ARE abuses that you have a concern about?"
Why would that possibility even cross your mind? Polygamy isn't legal, so the concerns are hypothetical.
"Or, do you think that once polygamy bacame legal they would magically happen (and cost the public a bundle)?"
What's magical about it? I know three women who would love to have the benefits my wife gets, and I know a couple dozen people in my battery alone that would have no hesitation in taking advantage of such a situation. And no, to anticipate your personal attack, I'm not one of them.
"Maybe bring a little of the actual costs (ooops, potential costs)... just to make sure you know what you're talking about."
I'm not sure what the relevance is supposed to be, unless you're claiming that benefits are negligible, and even then you're not factoring in multiplication. But between housing and food, my wife gets about $1300 a month.
"You know, like a little break down of actual costs of those benefits you worry about and add in all that medical and while you're at it ... oh, wait, don't we have "Obama-care" cow? Are you factoring in those expenses by previous systems or our current system?"
"Obama-care" eliminates medical costs at the source? Someone's still paying, unless you have evidence that hospitals are working for free now.
"Without looking, I can tell you that the concern is that if you give people the option to have multiple spouses, and the government is obligated to give benefits to spouses, then obviously people who have never even thought about polygamy are going to suddenly have multiple spouses who happened to need those benefits." ... That means you think that people will lower their morals to 'screw the system' just because they can? Don't they already have the option to 'screw the system' in any number of ways? Your fears are mearly based in your hateful bigoted ideals.
Delete"Polygamy isn't legal, so the concerns are hypothetical." ... Hey, murder isn't legal either. Does that mean the ramifications are hypothetical because it is illegal to murder? Bring some of the facts of your fears. How much will it cost?
"I'm not sure what the relevance is supposed to be" ... no, I suppose you wouldn't.
"Someone's still paying, unless you have evidence that hospitals are working for free now." ... Really? WHO? HOW MUCH? Bring some "potential" facts or shut up.
"... That means you think that people will lower their morals to 'screw the system' just because they can?"
DeleteWrong, it means they will take advantage of a situation. It doesn't mean they will "lower" their morals, because there's no actual change in their attitude, it's just a chance for them to exercise it. Why do you think the tax code is so complex, if not because people have taken advantage whenever it's been allowed?
"Don't they already have the option to 'screw the system' in any number of ways?"
And the government takes great pains to close any loopholes that allow that, as opposed to opening them up. Your point is in my favor. People do screw the system in as many ways as possible, which supports my concerns.
"... Hey, murder isn't legal either. Does that mean the ramifications are hypothetical because it is illegal to murder?"
Please try to explain how that was supposed to make any sense at all.
"How much will it cost?"
What's the relevance?
"Really? WHO? HOW MUCH? Bring some "potential" facts or shut up."
Who? If people aren't paying individually, then either corporations or taxpayers. Again, what's the relevance? If my wife can get surgery for free, the taxpayer is covering it. It's not two bucks, I can tell you that. If it's multiplied by however many people want or need surgery and can get it just by getting married to someone who's already married, then that's a problem. Provide a relevant rebuttal to that, or "shut up".
You want a "relevant rebuttal" to a non-answer? Ok, people will marry Americans just so they can live in America. That is done all the time by many people. Is the court system clogged with all those court cases over who gets to enter the US because they just married an American? And think of all the costs those people drain from the system. Where is your bigoted fear of foreigners coming to America using marriage as the method and using all the financial resources offered by our government? That must cost American tax-payers millions a year, yet no mention of that from you.
DeleteYour bigoted fears of a alternative lifestyle is reprehensible. The fact you continue to defend your bigoted position shows you are a bigot of the worst kind. Worse than limbaugh, worse than hannity. You just dodge and dodge and dodge. You make unsubstantiated claims of potential consequences and you can't even bring a single piece of evidence to show any kind of cost or real ramification for your bigoted fears.
Again, either bring the cost evidence or you will forever be known as a lying bigot. Perhaps I should just start using the letters "LB" to address you from now on? Or, you could bring the evidence for your bigoted fears.
"Is the court system clogged with all those court cases over who gets to enter the US because they just married an American?"
DeleteHow did you combine these two different subjects? Where did I talk about the courts when citing that potential problem? Besides that, the differences are obvious; first, if you marry someone for that reason, you can't marry anyone else; second, as noted, it's much easier for an investigator to determine fraud if there's only one spouse. So polygamy makes that situation worse.
"Where is your bigoted fear of foreigners coming to America using marriage as the method and using all the financial resources offered by our government? That must cost American tax-payers millions a year, yet no mention of that from you."
So now it's a problem that I'm not being bigoted? Hmm. This sounds like you changing the subject, by your definition of the phrase. However, you seem to think that any instances of fraud are supposed to be met with demands to change everything. That's not the case. Everything can be abused, the point is that it's beyond stupid to open up gaping loopholes which make abuses easier to commit and harder to determine.
Let's also note that the "relevant rebuttal" was specific to government benefits like medical care. For some reason, you didn't feel comfortable addressing the actual question.
"The fact you continue to defend your bigoted position shows you are a bigot of the worst kind."
Did you notice that you never answered the question regarding your opposition to polygamy? I did. Why are your religious objections acceptable, while legal reasons are "bigoted"? Also remember that you declared me a liar because I didn't fit in with your preconceived notion of Democrats. So, you're in no position to accuse anyone in the world of being a bigot. Sorry, you lose.
"You just dodge and dodge and dodge."
Hilarious, given what I said just previously. Also:http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362881078064#c4463269642063571818 You didn't address that at all, then you want to talk about dodging? Heal thyself.
"You make unsubstantiated claims of potential consequences and you can't even bring a single piece of evidence to show any kind of cost or real ramification for your bigoted fears."
You haven't explained what makes my concerns unrealistic. All you've done is brush off human nature as if it's an unrelated concept and act as if people are inherently good at heart.
"Again, either bring the cost evidence or you will forever be known as a lying bigot."
I told you what my wife gets in benefits. Medical costs vary, of course, so what you're stomping your feet over is unclear. You're also not explaining what the hell the difference is supposed to be, whether an operation costs a thousand dollars or ten thousand. Either way, it's still a problem. You can't deny that, which is why you're ramping up the baseless "bigot" rhetoric in order to cover up your embarrassing failures here.
By the way, I absolutely love the idea that you have some sort of control over my reputation. Like "anonymous" has the credibility to say that I'm a lying bigot, and the world will harken to your call. That's the best laugh you've given me this whole thread, and that's saying a lot.
DeleteWhy don't you determine individual beliefs and claims based on your perceptions of large groups some more? That will really solidify your standing as a fair, credible source of information (sarcasm).
"That will really solidify your standing as a fair, credible source of information (sarcasm)." ... I've never strived for those credentials, HERE. I try to 'fit in' and be just like your ilk. Which makes this so easy. I, now, get to make false claims and never have to substantiate them. I can, now, make up facts and claim they are facts until someone proves otherwise ... just like your ilk.
DeleteNow, when you're ready to provide actual evidence of potential massive increase in court cases and a massive increase in costs to the American public, I would be very willing to consider your point. But, without FACTS your opinion is strictly that.
"I can, now, make up facts and claim they are facts until someone proves otherwise ... just like your ilk."
DeleteWhere have I made up facts and claimed they were facts?
"Now, when you're ready to provide actual evidence of potential massive increase in court cases and a massive increase in costs to the American public, I would be very willing to consider your point."
Polygamy is not currently legal. With me so far? So, any discussion of the ramifications of changing that is...ready? "Hypothetical". It's a big word for you, I know, but I'm sure you can look it up if your mommy helps. You will pardon the condescension, since this has been explained to you multiple times, and your demand for "facts" is something you damn well know is dishonest by now. If you've really stretched this out for ten days (after bringing up the subject, remember) thinking that you're going to get verifiable specifics regarding what can't possibly be more than conceptual, you must be the dumbest person on the face of the planet. I, personally, think you're just being a jackass, but I could be wrong.
Also, you can't very well claim you're willing to consider anything, since I demonstrated that A)you called me a bigot for simply saying polygamists will have multiple spouses, B)you determined that I'm a liar based off of your bigoted view of Democrats, C)you claim that I support your "slippery slope" contention no matter what I say D)you refuse to accept human nature as a concept, E)you yourself won't explain your views on the subject, and F)you can't explain what makes my concerns unrealistic, while accepting the nature of the cause of the potential problems. So, until you reconcile those points, at the very least, you don't get to pretend to be reasonable. Actions have consequences.
That's where you are, now. Own the shit you've been throwing around this thread, or shut up. It's that simple. I've given you plenty of opportunities to be fair and rational, and your failures to do so are strictly your responsibility.
You want examples of you lying? Here: "A)you called me a bigot for simply saying polygamists will have multiple spouses,", "D)you refuse to accept human nature as a concept," , "B)you determined that I'm a liar based off of your bigoted view of Democrats". You see, when you lie, your actions have consequences. Well, not yours ... you're a democrat. They don't believe in consequences for your actions.
Delete"A)you called me a bigot for simply saying polygamists will have multiple spouses"
DeleteYou:"So, if anything, that issue is less prounounced than it is for straight couples, never mind someone with, say, six wives and twenty kids." ... Stop, please stop. Your feargmongering bigotness is showing. That statement is no different than if someone said: "I don't want gay marriage because they do icky things that I'm afraid of". You are such a bigot. (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362488782677#c3515371439148534374)
"B)you determined that I'm a liar based off of your bigoted view of Democrats"
You:""As I said, if there was one, I wouldn't support gay marriage." ... Yes, you would. You're a democrat and that's the way they do things: AS THEY ARE TOLD. Your ilk have no indepentant thinking minds, you simply do as you are told." (http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362768757415#c3382271748770219649)
"D)you refuse to accept human nature as a concept,"
You:"You have to take human nature into account." ... What's all that got to do with the conversation at hand?"
And, also you:""What do you think is supposed to make them refrain, precisely?" ... Well, they are getting married (theoretically) so I would say that "LOVE" will hold them together. Perhaps your moral expectations are so low that you don't think there are any good people left in the nation?"
Now, you can play semantics, but that's a good way of admitting defeat according to you. I find it funny that I get to point that out right after demonstrating how you can't claim to be reasonable. Great job solidifying the point.
Citations for D:
Deletehttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362647394370#c8029118773743593406
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362685529336#c4871829613396582479
Yes, semantics will work. Do you know the difference between fact and fiction? When you get done looking up those words, retype your reply, because it will completely change if you do it HONESTLY. Which I DO NOT expect to happen.
Delete"Where have I made up facts and claimed they were facts?" ... "The point is that if polygamy shoots up three thousand percent, it's a damn safe bet that a large chunk of those people aren't being sincere. Do you deny that, really?". http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/human-sexuality-is-complciated.html?showComment=1362751053570#c3015474666625989749
And then you continue to use that number as if it is fact. You even whined when I made up a number and complained that I made up numbers, while continuing to use the made up 3,000%.
A- you have ALWAYS included "hypothetical" abuse and court clogging as whines against polygamy. It has NEVER been "simply" the number of spouses. Very dis-honest of you to make an excuse as the one you did.
B- I call you a bigot because you make up reasons to dislike an alternative lifestyle. I have never determined you were a bigot for being a democrat. A liar maybe, but not a bigot.
D- Do you know the difference between the words "concept" and "conversation"? Because an entire CONCEPT includes all aspects. Having a "conversation at hand" includes only a portion of the aspects. And human nature did not have a place in the conversation at hand. That, in no way, implies I "refuse to accept human nature as a concept". But I don't expect you to understand that.
What else you got? Nothing? Ok,, good talking to you,
Oh, BTW, My bigoted view of democrats comes from real world experiences. Like discussing HERE. So far (in the short time I've been here) you people have lied, made up numbers and call them fact, get upset when corrected, and refused to discuss honestly. Don't worry, my bigoted view of democrats is well placed and earned by the very actions of democrats. Your ilk are all alike.
"And then you continue to use that number as if it is fact."
DeleteThe word "if" negates your claim. The entire conversation is based on a hypothetical situation, on top of that. This has been addressed.
"It has NEVER been "simply" the number of spouses."
No, you said the statement that I had just made showed that I was a bigot. Read it again. Note your complete failure to explain how it was bigoted, because you were simply making a distraction since you didn't want to address the point.
"I call you a bigot because you make up reasons to dislike an alternative lifestyle. I have never determined you were a bigot for being a democrat."
That wasn't even the claim. You called me a liar because I didn't fit in with your bigoted viewpoint that Democrats always do what they're told. You're suffering from conceptual dyslexia.
"And human nature did not have a place in the conversation at hand."
Of course it did. If you're going to talk about any change in law, that's the only way to evaluate consequences. What do you suggest, that any change in the law is automatically passed, and then we just wait to see what happens? Are all lawmakers that vote "no" on any bill bigots because they don't trust people unconditionally? You're invested in denying human nature because it destroys your argument. It's the same reason why you wouldn't allow your convictions to be tested, remember? "Do it on another thread" or some such.
"Oh, BTW, My bigoted view of democrats comes from real world experiences."
Great, then I can just base my view of Christians on your bigoted and hypocritical behavior (of course, I won't). See how that works? A generalization of everyone based on a handful of people is still wrong, and the fact that needs to be explained to you speaks volumes regarding your character.
So, you proved no lies, and proudly admitted to basing your views of every single Democrat in the country on a handful of people. Good job.
"I call you a bigot because you make up reasons to dislike an alternative lifestyle."
DeleteMore on this; who are you claiming, specifically, that I'm supposedly bigoted against? People who genuinely want to be polygamous, it would seem.
I haven't addressed that bit of nonsense, since you have no basis for "bigoted" anyway, but let's show just how little you're actually thinking about what you're saying, shall we? Just for fun.
The whole point of the hypothetical increase was that it would show that there are people who don't genuinely have an interest in that lifestyle. So, it isn't even about people who are sincere about it, it's that people will take advantage and pretend to be sincere for personal gain.
Similarly, if someone proposed that Catholics pay no taxes, I would oppose that for the same kind of reason (besides the government promoting a specific faith, of course). You can pretend that the number of "Catholics" wouldn't shoot through the roof, but it's pretty goddamn likely that it would. Now, would bringing up that point be prejudiced against Catholics? Or is it just opposing people who want to act like Catholics for personal gain? Hmmmm.
Here's a related story:During basic training some of my fellow recruits tried to get me to go to Jewish services because they had good food. Of course, I wouldn't go, and I said it was because it was disrespectful (they ended up getting the hell smoked out of them, and rightfully so in my opinion). The principle is similar;it's disrespectful to pretend to even be interested in the faith when you're just trying to gain something. Of course, based on your pattern of behavior, you'll surely say that I'm lying. Just as obviously, your admitted bigotry insures that nobody is compelled to take such a conclusion with any credibility whatsoever.
What really kills your claim, of course, is that I've said from the start have no problem with polyamory. That's the actual lifestyle in question. Polygamy is the legal sanctioning of that, which is a completely separate matter.
So, how exactly am I supposedly making up reasons "to dislike an alternative lifestyle", specifically?
"That wasn't even the claim." ... Here's your quote: "you determined that I'm a liar based off of your bigoted view of Democrats". Looks like you got caught lying AGAIN.
Delete"The whole point of the hypothetical increase was that it would show that there are people who don't genuinely have an interest in that lifestyle." ... the whole point of a hypothetical is to SHOW SOMETHING besides your bigotry. Now bring the facts (or dreamed of facts) that show what you claim.
"What really kills your claim, of course, is that I've said from the start have no problem with polyamory. " ... when we start talking about "polyamory" I'll keep that in mind. Otherwise, you've been against polygamy since the beginning. Is a polyamory some kind of haircut you military people get to impress your superiors?
My claim:"you determined that I'm a liar based off of your bigoted view of Democrats"
DeleteHere was your most recent "defense":"I have never determined you were a bigot for being a democrat. A liar maybe, but not a bigot."
Here's what you said:"... Yes, you would. You're a democrat and that's the way they do things: AS THEY ARE TOLD. Your ilk have no indepentant thinking minds, you simply do as you are told."
Now, try to follow carefully. I didn't say you called me a "bigot" there, which was your defense:"never determined you were a bigot". See that? I said your bigoted view of Democrats. You called me a liar because I didn't fit into your preconceived notions. That's what I said, and that fits your claim that I was lying because Democrats do what they're told. Any questions?
"... the whole point of a hypothetical is to SHOW SOMETHING besides your bigotry."
Yes, and pointing out that people would take advantage of a situation that could benefit them is not bigotry. Again, there are no facts in hypothetical situations.
"... when we start talking about "polyamory" I'll keep that in mind."
That's the lifestyle. I mentioned it in my first post on the subject, so you can't very well pretend it's just being introduced.
I'll ask again, who are you claiming I'm being bigoted against? If you feel you can levy the charge any number of times, you should be able to answer that simple question.
"I'll ask again, who are you claiming I'm being bigoted against?" ... Polygamists. Is this that complicated?
Delete"... Polygamists. Is this that complicated?"
DeleteNo, it's just that stupid. Here, I'll give you another chance to defend your claim:"The whole point of the hypothetical increase was that it would show that there are people who don't genuinely have an interest in that lifestyle. So, it isn't even about people who are sincere about it, it's that people will take advantage and pretend to be sincere for personal gain...Similarly, if someone proposed that Catholics pay no taxes, I would oppose that for the same kind of reason (besides the government promoting a specific faith, of course). You can pretend that the number of "Catholics" wouldn't shoot through the roof, but it's pretty goddamn likely that it would. Now, would bringing up that point be prejudiced against Catholics? Or is it just opposing people who want to act like Catholics for personal gain? Hmmmm."
So, if you're going to claim bigotry, you should be able to answer the question. Would that concern about a tax break for Catholics be bigoted against Catholics? If so, how?
"The whole point of the hypothetical increase was that it would show that there are people who don't genuinely have an interest in that lifestyle." ... Um, that is YOUR claim. But, that IS a good point to raise. Now, can you tell me how many people will "hypocthetically" start scamming the system that will end up costing the US taxpayers a fortune? Give me a 'high' number and a 'low' number of what your bigoted fears are about polygamy scamming the system.
DeleteBTW, the Catholic churchs are already not paying taxes. And, you are prejudiced against Catholics and all other religions. Probably for the same irresponsible reasons taht you are scared of polygamy.
"... Um, that is YOUR claim."
DeleteSo, your claim is that people will have the ability to get more money in benefits, and simply not take advantage of it? Let's allow government workers to write their own paychecks, then. Or welfare recipients, for that matter.
"Now, can you tell me how many people will "hypocthetically" [sic] start scamming the system that will end up costing the US taxpayers a fortune?"
I have no idea, and neither do you, how one would possibly estimate how many people would take advantage of that. That's part of the problem, obviously. Again, you're making irrational demands because you can't address the point any other way.
"BTW, the Catholic churchs [sic] are already not paying taxes."
I didn't say anything about churches. You think that what I said was that the number of buildings claiming to be "catholic" would shoot through the roof? Your reading comprehension is abysmal, if you honestly thought that's what I was saying. Want to give the actual question an honest attempt, or shall I just take your lame dodges as an admission that concern about people scamming the system doesn't reflect on people genuinely interested in polygamy? I think the latter's probably what's going to happen.
"And, you are prejudiced against Catholics and all other religions."
Prove it, or you're a liar. It's that simple.
"So, your claim is that people will have the ability to get more money in benefits, and simply not take advantage of it?" ... Um, no, that is not my claim. But, feel free to continue making shit up when you figure out that you aren't able to understand what is written.
Delete"Let's allow government workers to write their own paychecks, then. Or welfare recipients, for that matter." ... That would be a democratic idea, not mine. What you people desire is beyond all reasoning, but it doesn't stop you people from demanding it.
"I have no idea, and neither do you, how one would possibly estimate how many people would take advantage of that." ... Key words are: "I have no idea". Of course you don't. That is my point. Nobody knows what effect legal polygamy would have on the system without studies being done to find out. However, your jackbooted/bigoted reasoning for denying them the same marriage rights you seek for another immorality is hypocritical and bigoted and hateful and discriminatory. And, you are proud of being all of those while you happily continue giving reasons why consenting adults should NOT have the right to practice something that causes no harm to anyone else and gives them the ability to pursue life/liberty and happiness without disturbing you one little iota.
"Prove it, or you're a liar. It's that simple." ... Do you think it should be legal to hang a copy of the 10 commandments in a public building? That one covers several religions. Do you think it should be legal for a teacher to wear a hijab while teaching class? Do you think it should be legal to have religious displays on government owned land? If the answer to any (or the anticipated all) of these questions is NO, then you are proven to be prejudiced against harmless religions for no other reason than they scare you and you feel that laws should keep you from being scared. So, you demand that America become a 'nanny-state' where you tell the government what you are afraid of and you expect them to keep you from being exposed to all religions based on an unwritten rule that doesn't even apply to the demands you make for separation of church and state. Yeah, if basing your entire demands that religion be completely seperate from government on a personal letter, then you are most certainly prejudiced against all religions.
BTW, before all the laws took effect that prohibit public display of religious traditions ... what religion was the government sponsoring? Why are you so fearful of a nation admitting it's roots, while it always had kept them seperate (as demanded). Because I just don't remember the government EVER telling me what religion I HAD TO CHOOSE. Do you remember that? Hmmm, a government NEVER told it's inhabitants to follow any particular religion, yet you fear it will. That makes you sound a little paranoid.
Here's an example you may understand: when you joined the military and got your dogtags, did they ASK you what religion you were or TELL you what religion you were? THERE is the separation of church and state in living action. That is the limit to what they should be able to do: ask, don't tell.
"... Um, no, that is not my claim."
DeleteThen what is, and how does it differ significantly from what I wrote?
"... That would be a democratic idea, not mine."
Oh, so you don't trust people, all of a sudden? Aren't there good people in the world?
"Of course you don't. That is my point. Nobody knows what effect legal polygamy would have on the system without studies being done to find out."
Actually, that's my point (minus the studies, the process of which would need to be explained). Nobody can have any idea of how many people would exploit that, while you've been minimizing it saying you think it would only involve 100 people and that abuses would be minimal. The fact that nobody knows the potential is a point in my favor, because that makes the concern eminently reasonable. And, therefore, not bigoted. Thanks for helping me out.
"...while you happily continue giving reasons why consenting adults should NOT have the right to practice something that causes no harm to anyone else and gives them the ability to pursue life/liberty and happiness without disturbing you one little iota."
You just got finished saying that you have no idea what sort of abuses would occur, so you can't claim there's no harm in the next paragraph. What the hell is wrong with you?
"... Do you think it should be legal to hang a copy of the 10 commandments in a public building?"
DeleteNo, because we have freedom of and from religion. Doing that would be discriminatory against any faith that doesn't follow the relevant text.
"Do you think it should be legal for a teacher to wear a hijab while teaching class?"
I'm not sure what the objection would be to any such expression of personal faith.
"Do you think it should be legal to have religious displays on government owned land?"
No, because it's an implicit endorsement of one faith over another. Again, discriminatory. All faiths should be treated equally.
"If the answer to any (or the anticipated all) of these questions is NO, then you are proven to be prejudiced against harmless religions for no other reason than they scare you and you feel that laws should keep you from being scared."
Wrong in an epic manner. We have freedom of and from religion. Should public schools teach creationism as credible science? You must say yes, because the principle is the same. My alternatives here, by your perverted framework, is either I accept governmental advocation of a matter of faith, or I'm scared of religion. No. That will not stand. I have no problem with religion, but you can't push it on the public.
"Because I just don't remember the government EVER telling me what religion I HAD TO CHOOSE."
Irrational standard. We could have forced school prayer, the 10 commandments on every courthouse wall, and government sponsorship of Christianity as long as you're not threatened with legal consequences for not choosing to be a Christian. Absurd in the extreme. The government has no place taking any preferential action in any way whatsoever. The real question is why are you so threatened by that? You don't think your faith can survive on its own? It needs to be propped up by the government?
"Here's an example you may understand: when you joined the military and got your dogtags, did they ASK you what religion you were or TELL you what religion you were?"
Here's a better question:did they encourage me to list one religion over another? Did they suggest I should go to church? See the chaplain for spiritual guidance? Why no. They did not. Even though that wouldn't be forcing me to do anything, it would still be wrong.
And here's your claim, since your post indicates you don't fully understand it:"And, you are prejudiced against Catholics and all other religions." Now, if I want all religions to be treated equally by the government, where...exactly...is this supposed prejudice against all religions supposed to be? Is the idea supposed to be that the government is going to prop up every single religion equally? We're going to have dozens of different types of prayers in classrooms? No, probably not. If you're going to support the most popular faiths and not the others, then I'm standing up for those less popular faiths. How that is supposed to prove my pre-established judgments against any faith, never mind all faiths, bears quite a bit of explanation on your part. Good luck, you're going to need it.
"No, because we have freedom of and from religion." ... There is a freedom OF religion, there is no freedom FROM religion. You might want to document that, if you know of any.
Delete"No, because it's an implicit endorsement of one faith over another. Again, discriminatory. All faiths should be treated equally." ... Yes, that's what I'm asking. Can religions display on government land? I am not singling out just one (obviously). However, you are singling out Christianity in your rant against religion.
"The real question is why are you so threatened by that? You don't think your faith can survive on its own? It needs to be propped up by the government?" ... I'm not threatened at all. I have no problem with all religions being able to express themselves in public. You do show a deepseated (and unfounded) fear of religion, though, by demanding they NOT show up anywhere except their own private property. Also feel that way about anyone else who feels outlawing public display of religion is the only legal remidy for your irrational fears.
"Here's a better question:did they encourage me to list one religion over another?" ... You dodge one qustion and ask another. Then you have the nerve to answer your own question for me. Well, your answer shows that you have an irrational/unfounded fear of religion in this nation. Because NONE of your fears have ever come true. This government has NEVER told you what religion to accept. EVER! If you have something to show otherwise, bring it.
"Actually, that's my point (minus the studies, the process of which would need to be explained)." ... Of course your fears do NOT include pre-cursory investigations into the implications of law changes. You just use knee-jerk reactionary fearmongering to promote your type of bigotry.
Delete"You just got finished saying that you have no idea what sort of abuses would occur, so you can't claim there's no harm in the next paragraph." ... What "harm" do suppose they expose themselves to? Diseases? Mental anguish? Physical abuse? I think all of those possibilities are present in gay marriage also. Why did you say you are FOR gay marriage, but AGAINST polygamy again? I don't think you have ONE viable argument to sustain your bigoted ramblings.
Hey, wait a minute. You tricked me. You are now asking about physical "abuses" when I (obviously) used "abuses" in the CONTEXT of cheating the government (your unsubstantiated fear). But, I like my first answer, so I'll leave it there. Good one.
"... There is a freedom OF religion, there is no freedom FROM religion."
DeleteHow do you have one without the other?
"... Yes, that's what I'm asking. Can religions display on government land?"
Are you assuming that there's enough space for all religions? Or that even though this country is predominantly Christian that the ratio of said displays wouldn't be overwhelmingly Christian? You'll have to specify exactly how you think this is supposed to work.
"... I'm not threatened at all."
And that's why you think you need the ten commandments up on courthouse walls?
"... You dodge one qustion and ask another."
Wrong. I told you your standard was irrational, that addressed your question.
"This government has NEVER told you what religion to accept. EVER!"
Where did I say the government was going to do that?
"Of course your fears do NOT include pre-cursory investigations into the implications of law changes."
If you have evidence to your benefit, by all means bring it to the table. The fact that you bring the idea out at this point in the discussion suggests to me you have none.
"... What "harm" do suppose they expose themselves to?"
Who said "harm" has to be to only the people involved?
"You are now asking about physical "abuses" when I (obviously) used "abuses" in the CONTEXT of cheating the government (your unsubstantiated fear)."
I never said anything about physical abuses. I'm using the same context you are.
"How do you have one without the other?" ... Did you really just ask that? You don't know the difference? You can practice any religion you want (OF), that doesn't allow you to interfere with other people expressing their religion (FROM).
Delete"And that's why you think you need the ten commandments up on courthouse walls?" ... There's a good example of you not being able to read or comprehend. Where did I say I wanted the 10 Commandments up on every courthouse wall?
"The fact that you bring the idea out at this point in the discussion suggests to me you have none." ... What "idea" is that? The "idea" that YOU prove what you claim? Yeah, that's a weird "idea" to expect you to adhere to.
"Who said "harm" has to be to only the people involved?" ... Try to follow along and answer the simple questions first then move on to the more difficult ones.
"I never said anything about physical abuses. I'm using the same context you are." ... no you're not. Explain how it is the same context. Do you know what context means? Should I look that word up for you in my trusty dictionery?
"You can practice any religion you want (OF) that doesn't allow you to interfere with other people expressing their religion (FROM)."
DeleteOther people expressing their own religion would also be freedom of religion. Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, or being persuaded in any way, shape or form that any religion is better or more valid than another.
"Where did I say I wanted the 10 Commandments up on every courthouse wall?"
Are you parsing the word "every", which you added? You asked if I thought that was appropriate, and if I said "no" that I was a bigot. So, you pretty clearly said you think the 10 commandments should be on courthouse walls.
"... What "idea" is that?"
The idea that there are some pre-cursory investigations regarding what would happen if polygamy was legalized. I find it funny you have to ask that right after saying I can't comprehend things.
"... Try to follow along and answer the simple questions first then move on to the more difficult ones."
That was a simple question that you apparently can't answer. Where did I say harm only applies to the people involved?
"... no you're not. Explain how it is the same context."
How would physical harm even fit in to what I was talking about? Here's what I said:"You just got finished saying that you have no idea what sort of abuses would occur, so you can't claim there's no harm in the next paragraph." This entire conversation the meaning of "abuses" has been consistent and clear, meaning people exploiting loopholes and clogging up the courts. Now, all of a sudden, you think it's physical, even while in that single isolated sentence the connection between "abuses" and "harm" is beyond obvious.
"Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, or being persuaded in any way, shape or form that any religion is better or more valid than another." ... What "captive audience" occurs in a 'park' setting? Are you forced to look at displays or can you ignore them?
Delete"... What "captive audience" occurs in a 'park' setting?"
DeleteYou posted it yourself:"...or being persuaded in any way, shape or form that any religion is better or more valid than another."
Why should the government get involved in supporting any religion in any way? Please explain, if you expect your views to be taken as reasonable.
And, what is your premise that the government is "supporting" ANY religion by allowing all religions to have equal access to public displays?
Delete"Please explain, if you expect your views to be taken as reasonable." ... I don't expect my views to ever to reasonable in this setting. You can't even carry on a conversation without ignoring context, quotations, comprehension and honesty.
"You posted it yourself:" .... Don't be bringing out of context statements trying to ignore your way past this question: What "captive audience" occurs in a 'park' setting? YOU said "CAPTIVE AUDIENCE", now explain that without using out of context diversionary tactics.
Delete"Why should the government get involved in supporting any religion in any way?" ... Because RELIGIONS are the ones who go out and help during natural crisis's, saving the govenrment tons of cash. I don't ever see any large groups of atheists going out to help during after the Katrina or Sandy storms. You see, if this nation was full of atheists, then there would be no help available to those who don't qualify for govenrment assistance.
Now, if you're ready to pay taxes close to the 60% range, then you can continue to whine about how the government continues to "support" religions. But if you're happy paying lower taxes, then STFU.
What group of atheists have gone to any natural disaster with the intention of helping OTHERS? IMO, atheists are self-centered bigots who only care for themselves and not anyone else. That's from personal experience and examples that you have given over the past couple weeks.
"And, what is your premise that the government is "supporting" ANY religion by allowing all religions to have equal access to public displays?"
DeleteI'll ask again, is there supposed to be room enough for all religions in this scenario? Further, do you think all religions have the same amount of people, resources or even interest in such displays?
"... I don't expect my views to ever to reasonable in this setting."
Then you can't judge me as a bigot based on your views, obviously. That was very dumb of you to say.
"You can't even carry on a conversation without ignoring context, quotations, comprehension and honesty."
Another assertion without evidence. Surprise.
".... Don't be bringing out of context statements trying to ignore your way past this question: What "captive audience" occurs in a 'park' setting?"
Except "captive audience" wasn't the only thing I said. The other part of it, which you posted, was the relevant quote for park displays. The context supports me, you're just pretending that you can insist on meanings I never stated nor implied.
"... Because RELIGIONS are the ones who go out and help during natural crisis's, saving the govenrment tons of cash."
And they're not taxed. If they want to do that, good for them. They're not employees of the government, though, so no other benefits should be sent their way. Are these religions helping because it's the right thing to do, or because they expect favoritism in return?
"You see, if this nation was full of atheists, then there would be no help available to those who don't qualify for govenrment [sic] assistance."
Faulty logic. You assume that you have to be religious to be charitable or helpful.
"Now, if you're ready to pay taxes close to the 60% range, then you can continue to whine about how the government continues to "support" religions. But if you're happy paying lower taxes, then STFU."
What the hell are you babbling about? Taxes need to be raised to that degree to put the ten commandments on the walls of public buildings?
"What group of atheists have gone to any natural disaster with the intention of helping OTHERS?"
How many "groups" of atheists are there? There are no atheist churches, so it's not as if large groups of atheists are going to decide things the same way as religious groups do. How many individual atheists have gone to help with natural disasters? You have no way of knowing, do you? It's just more convenient for your prejudices if you assume the worst of everyone you already hate. Besides that, the American Red Cross is not a religious organization, so its motivation for helping in all sorts of situations is not religious in nature.
"Then you can't judge me as a bigot based on your views, obviously." ... I don't. I judge you being a bigot by standards set before I got here. You set the standards as you call others bigots. If you call someone a bigot (and believe it to be true) then you must have a reason for it. I'm just using the same reasoning that you use as you call people bigots. So, by YOUR standards, you are a bigot.
Delete"I'll ask again, is there supposed to be room enough for all religions in this scenario?" ... Well, the US is only nearly 4 MILLION SQUARE FEET large. How much room do you anticipate it taking? Maybe this time you'll actually ANSWER the question? The FACTS show that you'll ignore that question again. Because I've already said you ignore context (you denied it, of course) and you have failed to address the question at hand by admitting you said that, but refuse to answer for it.
"You have no way of knowing, do you?" ... Yes, I do. Ever hear of the MEDIA? They tell all and have access to all. They even make shit up to keep people like you happy (Rather-gate). So, you go look on the internet and find some news stories about all those atheists who help during natural disasters. Wanna bet I can find 100X more articles that show various religions HAPPILY helping others during disasters. While, you find only disgruntled atheists helping out. Perhaps that's why you chose atheism, because that way you get out of helping others in their time of need.
"Besides that, the American Red Cross is not a religious organization," ... God, you are stupid. I didn't say the Red Cross WAS a religious organization. DID I? Besides, do you belong to the Red Cross/Red Cresent? No, I didn't think you belonged to a group that HELPS people.
"Another assertion without evidence. Surprise." ... I'll use your VERY NEXT STATEMENT:
"Except "captive audience" wasn't the only thing I said." ... Now, stop ignoring the question that is IN context to what YOU SAID. You specifically used the words "captive audience". Where is there a "captive audience" in the park setting?
"And they're not taxed." ... I am of a religion and I am taxed. What are you talking about? Hundreds of thousands of people are employees of the government who are in religions. What are you talking about?
"Are these religions helping because it's the right thing to do, or because they expect favoritism in return?" ... Because it's the right thing to do. That's why you don't see many (if any) atheists helping.
"You assume that you have to be religious to be charitable or helpful." ... Also, YOU assume non-religious people help at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"If you call someone a bigot (and believe it to be true) then you must have a reason for it. I'm just using the same reasoning that you use as you call people bigots. So, by YOUR standards, you are a bigot."
DeleteThat probably could not have made less sense if you tried. I do have a reason for calling people bigots when I do so, and I explain it. How does that relate to your position not being reasonable while you claim you have a reason to call me a bigot?
"... Well, the US is only nearly 4 MILLION SQUARE FEET large. How much room do you anticipate it taking?"
So, people are supposed to see a display in Anchorage, Alaska from their home in Bangor, Maine? What the hell are you babbling about?
"Because I've already said you ignore context (you denied it, of course) and you have failed to address the question at hand by admitting you said that, but refuse to answer for it."
I've asked you twice to be more specific as to what your "public display" concern is about, and yet, you refuse to answer. Regarding your idiotic claims of ignoring context, see below.
" ... Yes, I do. Ever hear of the MEDIA?"
The media keeps track of the number of atheists helping out in disasters? That's impressive.
"Wanna bet I can find 100X more articles that show various religions HAPPILY helping others during disasters."
I'm sure it's more noticeable when an actual group that has a name to it announces that it's helping out. I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who are interviewed who make it a huge point to mention that they're atheists, under almost any circumstances.
"I didn't say the Red Cross WAS a religious organization. DID I?"
You seem to think that only religious people make an effort for anyone but themselves. Why are they helping out so much, if God isn't their motivation?
"Besides, do you belong to the Red Cross/Red Cresent?"
While in the Army? Um, no. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work, but I'm sure you can't explain it.
"You specifically used the words "captive audience". Where is there a "captive audience" in the park setting?"
Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays? Your assumption is not my responsibility.
"... I am of a religion and I am taxed."
Churches are not taxed. We're talking about organized religions, remember? Here's what you said, to which the quote you posted is directed:"... Because RELIGIONS are the ones who go out and help during natural crisis's [sic], saving the govenrment [sic] tons of cash." Are you a "RELIGION"?
"... Because it's the right thing to do."
Then don't expect a reward.
"... Also, YOU assume non-religious people help at all."
As opposed to the claim that none do? Sure. I'll take on that one. It's a pretty safe bet that out of the increasing number of non-religious people in the country, some of them are charitable and donate their time and efforts in a crisis. Because there's no possible reason to believe an all-encompassing comment like yours. It's utterly unjustifiable and antithetical to common sense. That would be like saying that not a single Republican supports environmental regulations. Meaning it would be absurd, given the number of Republicans and the variance of views and attitudes in that group. Now, why is it that an atheist Democrat can be fair like that, while a pious Christian is unable to do the same? I know other Christians are able to do it, because I know not all Christians are the same.
Look, I did it again! Damn me and my rational grasp of variance within groups!
"The media keeps track of the number of atheists helping out in disasters? That's impressive." ... Ever hear of a thing called google. You may want to try it.
Delete"I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who are interviewed who make it a huge point to mention that they're atheists, under almost any circumstances." ... I'd be embarrassed to say that too.
"Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays? Your assumption is not my responsibility." ... No, but your statements are: "Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, or being persuaded in any way, shape or form that any religion is better or more valid than another.". Are you denying that you said that? Are you going to take "responsibility" for your own statement?
**NOTE** this comment belongs up here, and not at the bottom of the aritcle where it first appeared.
Part 1/3
ReplyDeleteOK, First things last…
TJ was NOT a Christian in the modern sense of the word, that you lot use it when describing us as a “Christian Nation.” From Wikipedia:
“J's religious and spiritual beliefs were a combination of various religious and theological precepts. While he embraced various Christian principles he rejected most of the orthodox Christianity of his day and was especially hostile to the Catholic Church as he saw it operate in France.”
“in terms of belief he was inclined toward Deism”
…Which is defined as “the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of God, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge”
Hardly the meat and drink of your Average, modern-day, RW, Christian Funny-Mentalists. Who I have heard go so far as to describe TJ as a non-believer. Indeed TJ’s view on Religion seem closer to mine than they do to yours.
“America” […] “WAS a Christian Nation”
Bullshit. Prove it. Show me even a single word about Christianity, the Bible, God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, Souls, Salvation or indeed ANY term that would clearly denote our status as a “Christian Nation” in our Constitution. I’ve looked. And I know for a fact that there isn’t any. The only mention of Religion that you’ll find?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
So for all the “belief” that the FF’s had, they saw fit to write that as the very first part of the very first amendment. “No law respecting an establishment of religion.” IOW: (1) We are NOT a “Christian Nation.” (2) We NEVER were, or were even INTENDED to be. (3) You, and all those deny that either border on illiterate or are capable of monumental mental gymnastics to get from “no law respecting an establishment of religion” to “We are a Christian Nation.” Our FOUNDING DOCUMENT says precisely the opposite. And from day one America was a welcome haven for Jews, “Mussulmen” (Muslims), Non-Believers and Puritans alike.
“No one gets hurt.”
Show me a single way in which I can be hurt in a homosexual relationship that I cannot get hurt in a hetero- one. Give me ONE example that applies exclusively to gays. Sex and relationships of ALL kinds carry risks. But you know… That whole “Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness” thing? See: We’re ALLOWED to risk ourselves the harm that comes with pursuing love. Show me how/why Gays are any different.
“Other sexual choices” “Would you demand the same rights for them?”
If they also “DO NO HARM” (beyond that which is risked by those pursuing relationships that YOU approve of?) YES. And I’m guessing most already have them. BTW… “DO NO HARM” is stated because people like you seem to need to have the OBVIOUS spelled out for them: CONSENTING ADULTS. You may call “Pedophilia” an “orientation” but it, by its very nature, involves those who are not LEGALLY allowed to even GIVE consent. (Minors.) Done. Right there. Harm. We need go no further. And that is consistent with many other areas of our common and contract law. (The idea that a monor cannot give consent.) You may call “bestiality” an “orientation,” but an animal cannot give consent under common or contract law either. If you’re that concerned about plural marriage? Hey: It definitely ain’t MY thing. One wife is more than enough for me on most days. But if it is all done with the CONSENT of all parties? I see no reason to outlaw it. (Just iron out the tax code to prevent abuse.) Try to show me who that would hurt, without using the word “coercive,” “minors,” or anything else negating CONSENT!
Give me one good reason that CONSENTING ADULTS (using the current legal definition for both of those) should not be allowed to do whatever they please within the confines of their relationship. It’s not ME who’s worried about what’s cute. It’s you and your ilk who want to TAKE AWAY people’s FUNDAMENTAL, INALIENABLE rights, just because you think what they do is icky.
(con't)
Part 2/3
ReplyDelete“Born that way.”
*sigh* What is it with you people and your binary thinking and false dilemmas? Are you seriously suggesting that the only two possibilities are (1) Conscious choice (which I can assure you I did not make) and (2) “born that way” (which I never said I was)? Is your mind seriously so narrow and shallow that you can’t perceive of ANY other ways that my CHOICES are influenced by external (or internal) factors that I did not choose? That’s completely idiotic! Was I “born that way?” No, I wouldn’t say I was, seeing as how I didn’t even find girls attractive until puberty! But you are seriously suggesting that I CHOSE to find one type of girl (Red-Head) more attractive than another or that I even CHOSE to be attracted to GIRLS? And, uh… You can PROVE that?! Good luck with that. Because I didn’t CHOOSE either of those thing. I REALIZED that was how I felt and I acted accordingly. And “born that way” doesn’t have to enter into it! And hey: A generation ago, if I was attracted to Black Women, you lot would have said I shouldn’t be allowed to marry one of them! USING THE SAME ARGUMENTS YOU’RE USING NOW, I might add! And if I happened to find I was attracted to men? Well, I could still CHOOSE to chase girls. (Of course.) But if MEN was what would make me happy, that’s not a circumstance that I CHOSE. I can only CHOOSE to follow it (and be happy) or NOT to (and be less happy.) As for those that really CAN choose one or the other and be EQUALLY happy? There’s a term for that: BISEXUAL. (The “B” in LGBT!) And the only difference is that they have more choices that will make them happy. They still didn’t CHOOSE to be Bi. And they’re not going from Gay to Straight (or vice-versa) by first dating one gender and then another. That’s merely choosing their BEHAVIOR, in accordance with their ORIENTATION (Bi) which WAS NOT CHOSEN! How the hell is this so hard for you people to understand?!
“You do not choose you’re preferences” “is that your opinion?” “Do you have something to back it up?”
Yeah: I have an understanding of how choice works, what merits are in the determinism argument and the ability to think about thing on just a slightly deeper level than you appear capable of. Take any CHOICE you have ever made. Then ask yourself WHY you made that choice. Just as assuredly as you will not be able to name enough factors to dispel the “illusion” of choice (hence why I don’t accept that free will IS merely an illusion) you will inevitably find factors – both internal and external – that you did not “CHOOSE.” And you can take any of those internal factors as “preferences.”
3/3 (CON'T)
ReplyDeleteWhy did you embrace religion, where I have rejected it? We both made that choice. You, for example, may have more of a need for certainty, or structure or dogma in your life. (IDK, I’m just giving examples.) Whereas I actually embrace chaos and uncertainty, derive pleasure form tearing down dogma, and want to seek the “truth” for myself, on my own terms. Neither of us CHOSE to be that way. Nor were we likely BORN THAT WAY. But, for whatever reason, here we are. We are the way are and we both made our choices accordingly.
You can apply this to ANYTHING…
I’d LOVE to prefer fruits and vegetables to junk food and alcohol. But I don’t. Sure, I make an effort to EAT that way… Because I want to be healthy. So I CHOOSE to try to eat healthy. But did I choose to WANT to be healthy? Nope. And if I didn’t care about being healthy? That (which I didn’t CHOOSE) would lead me to make very different choices. Which, sadly, I have been doing for awhile now – hence my current struggle/goal regarding my weight. Did I choose to eat poorly? You bet I did, and I have no one to blame but myself. I still didn’t CHOOSE the preferences that influenced those decisions however. If I preferred better foods? Well… better choices wouldn’t be so hard to make!
I prefer Lamborghinis to Ferraris, Porsches, etc… Why? I prefer the style. I like the culture they’re designed within. I like the spirit of the cars and their designers and their market drivers. I didn’t CHOOSE any of these things! Nor I do I CHOOSE to prefer Lambo’s. BUT… If I ever win the lottery, all of those things will influence my CHOICE to buy one!
Explaining why I like Baseball over Football, Basketball, Hockey, Boxing, Soccer, etc… Would reveal a lot of factors about my personality THAT I DID NOT CHOOSE. They would explain why I would rather watch the World Series than the Super Bowl. They would explain why I CHOOSE to watch and follow Baseball. And why I enjoy it. But I don’t CHOOSE to enjoy it! And I didn’t CHOOSE the things that would explain why I do!
I don’t know WHY I love… Red Hair, Green Eyes, Girls who wear glasses, smaller breasts, bigger bottoms, Women over Men, Tomboys over Girly-girls, Bookworms over Bimbos, Free-Spirits over the Strait-Laced, girls-next-door over magazine-models, the open-minded, deep-thinkers over (what I’m sure you have a more flattering term for) the judgmental and simplistic. I can assure you that I never chose ANY of these preferences. Was I BORN liking these things? I doubt it. (I was BORN liking super-heroes, toys and cartoons!) I simply DO, for better or worse, and I can’t for the life of me tell you WHY.
Now if you ask WHY I chose (to pursue and marry) the mate I did? I could list MOST of what I just said above. (Her eyes are brown. *sigh* Nobody’s perfect. LOL) But ask “Why” again – why I prefer those factors? And I have no answer for you.
How could I? They weren’t things I CHOSE. They
simply ARE.
And I merely CHOSE my mate accordingly.
(End)
Now, please: Explain to me why you would deny that freedom to ANY two consenting adults?
"Explaining why I like Baseball over Football, Basketball, Hockey, Boxing, Soccer, etc… Would reveal a lot of factors about my personality THAT I DID NOT CHOOSE." ... You DIDN'T choose to like one sport over another?!? You aren't seriously telling me that people are BORN preferring one sport over another, are you?!? That is pretty lame, pretty stupid and pretty illogical. Not to mention the ONLY way you can claim anyone is born gay.
Delete"A generation ago, if I was attracted to Black Women, you lot would have said I shouldn’t be allowed to marry one of them! " .... Sorry, I'm not "you lot". Try to force your liberalized brain into accepting that there ARE people out there who think for themselves and aren't the sheeple your ilk are. So, your strawman argument falls flat, along with all your other arguments that support your "born that way" demands. You've got nothing and you keep bringing it as if it is new information you just found. Your ilk does seem to act that way constantly.
"I have an understanding of how choice works, what merits are in the determinism argument and the ability to think about thing on just a slightly deeper level than you appear capable of." ... Judging from the reasoning you give, on how "choice works", I don't think you do.
FFS, I never said BORN! In fact, if you actually READ them damned post, you'd see that I pointed out that saying that way is completely idiotic! And if I have to point that out again, I'm going to get brusque with you.
DeleteDid I CHOOSE to like baseball over football?
NO. NO, I FUCKING DIDN'T!
I've played both, watched both, read about both and written about both. In every case I ENJOYED [whatever it was] as it pertained to baseball more than when I was [doing it with] Football.
The Baseball gave me more pleasure.
How the FUCK can you say I CHOSE that?! That's idiotic!
I tried one and got pleasure from it, tried the other and got more pleasure from it. Where's the choice?! The one I like more is the one that gave me more pleasure. That's not a choice, it's a MEASUREMENT.
You know what? This is futile.
I'm not going to argue for determinism (especially as I'm not even IN that camp) to someone who doesn't even realize that there's even a debate between Free Will and Determinism!
You are just not a very deep thinker. You share that trait with most conservatives.
Just do this one exercise: Ask yourself "WHY?"
Pick a choice you've consciously made. ANY choice. And list all the reasons you made that choice. And then ask WHY those things matter to you, and WHY other things don't, and WHY you chose to value one option over another, and if you keep doing that, you will eventually reach a point where you say, "I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DO!" or "THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL!"
Eventually you will realize that almost all of your choices come down to factors you can't explain. Deeply rooted personality traits. THOSE are what determine your preferences.
Are you BORN with them? No. Personally, I believe you are born as a blank slate. (So if you say I said "you're born with them" again, I'm going to hit you in the head with a brick!) And these blanks fill in over time. Genetics plays a role, sure. So does upbringing. Culture. The Media (however you define that.) You're experiences. You're frineds, family and teachers... Every second of your life, your personality, and all the baggage that goes with it, is being formed. And it is really all of THOSE factors, unchosen and unconscious that are what make you're "choices."
See: Free Will IS actually an illusion.
Or so every philosopher and REALLY deep thinker will tell you. And you will never win that debate with them. (Hell, I'VE never won that debate and compared to me, you're a moron.) ;)
But as I said: I still hold out for that quaint and romantic notion you call "choice." I don't believe it's an illusion. I don't see the determinist's arguments as sufficient to disprove Free Will.
But at least I know they HAVE them, and I understand them well enough to know that they DO have merit.
Come back at some point in the future when YOU finally understand them.
Otherwise you're claim that you CHOOOSE everything about you? Just looks like stupid arrogance, hubris and pride.
(And BTW... Don't bother saying that God gave you free will. The existance of an all-knowing god is one of the easiest ways to disprove free will. So don't waste my time with that white-belt level argument.)
"The Baseball gave me more pleasure."
Delete"I tried one and got pleasure from it, tried the other and got more pleasure from it. Where's the choice?!" ... If I was stupid enough to say that, barbantio would have wanted to know if I had tried EVERY sport. Otherwise, there could have been no real choice. Have you tried EVERY sport? If not, then how do you know you won't find more pleasure from a sport other than baseball? That is the kind of analogy that barbantio would bring to relate my 'choice' to be heterosexual when I was younger. So, no, trying EVERY option is not necassary to know what PREFERENCES YOU CHOOSE. And using your baseball analogy, you found more pleasure from one. THAT is how you made your CHOICE. If "pleasure" is what gave you preference of which sport you liked, then obviously, you were not born (or whatever your ilk calls it now) with a predestination to prefer baseball over football. You had to experience one in order to find any pleasure at all, then you compared it to pleasure from a different source and found one better than the other and you MADE A CHOICE.
"Just looks like stupid arrogance, hubris and pride." ... and as I CHOOSE to be stupid, the harm that may come to me is real. Why would anyone CHOOSE to be stupid? I guess I was born that way. Or I CHOSE not to pay attention in school. One or the other. Just like people CHOOSE to be gay despite the harm that may be possible. Were those inter-racial marriages (you are so concerned about) given ANY CHOICE for the race they were? Well, there's another analogy, of yours, that falls flat on it's face. Wait, we could go off onto the other subjects you want to discuss: free will and determination. I'll bet you've got a ton of unrelated analogies for that discussion, huh?
If all you're going to bring is rude behavior and insinuated threats as your only claim that gays are born that way then there IS nothing more to say.
"... If I was stupid enough to say that, barbantio would have wanted to know if I had tried EVERY sport."
DeleteYou should probably try to improve your arguments before you attempt to make any on my behalf.
"And using your baseball analogy, you found more pleasure from one. THAT is how you made your CHOICE."
The analogy is to sexual attraction, not pleasure. There's nothing in there to say that one actually has to have gay relations in order to rule it out, because the lack of attraction would eliminate that option. Which is why it's not a choice, unless you're attracted to both genders.
It's pretty amusing for you to complain about "rude behavior", incidentally. Good laugh there.
"You should probably try to improve your arguments before you attempt to make any on my behalf." ... sorry, gramps. You are right, I don't want to use your arguments. They aren't very good ones. But, I figured that would be the only one you would understand (without someone explaining to you). I was wrong. As evidenced by your next statement in which you attempt to move the goal posts and change the subject.
DeleteAnd your explanation for how I tried to "move the goal posts and change the subject" is...? Of course you don't have one.
DeleteWhich leads to:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"
"The analogy is to sexual attraction, not pleasure."
Delete"Of course you don't have one." ... The analogy was about "pleasure". Go back and read it over again. No mention of "sexual attraction", that I see, in his analogy of baseball/football. But, if you want to bring "sexual attraction" into a discussion on the pleasures of baseball and football and the resulting CHOICES, you'll probably do it.
"... The analogy was about "pleasure". Go back and read it over again. No mention of "sexual attraction", that I see, in his analogy of baseball/football."
DeleteI've read it. Did you read the actual post?:"You don't choose you're preferences. Period. They are the things that, consciously and unconsciously, influence you're choices."
This is regarding sexual orientation. That's attraction, unless you want to argue that everyone's had bisexual experiences and then chose what was more pleasurable to them. That's the topic at hand, so I'm not bringing up anything new at all.
In fact, you must know that's the context here because you responded:"... and that is opinion? Or, do you have some facts to back that up? You were "born" preferring red-heads?"
Further:"Pick a choice you've consciously made. ANY choice. And list all the reasons you made that choice. And then ask WHY those things matter to you, and WHY other things don't, and WHY you chose to value one option over another, and if you keep doing that, you will eventually reach a point where you say, "I DON'T KNOW, I JUST DO!" or "THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL!"...Eventually you will realize that almost all of your choices come down to factors you can't explain. Deeply rooted personality traits. THOSE are what determine your preferences."
That ties directly into the point of his original post. The analogy is to attraction, since there are "factors you can't explain" involved in both. Do you really need someone to restate their thesis in every single paragraph they type afterwards? Or are you just acting dumb?
Let's explore this a little deeper, actually:"And using your baseball analogy, you found more pleasure from one. THAT is how you made your CHOICE. If "pleasure" is what gave you preference of which sport you liked, then obviously, you were not born (or whatever your ilk calls it now) with a predestination to prefer baseball over football. You had to experience one in order to find any pleasure at all, then you compared it to pleasure from a different source and found one better than the other and you MADE A CHOICE."
DeleteNow, you yourself claim that you chose heterosexuality, remember? You're trying to establish a general principle here, something that applies to everyone. That would mean that if you think that Eddie had to have gay sex in order to determine that he wasn't gay, then how...the hell...did you "choose" to be straight at age four or whatever you said?
So, if you really, really want to insist that Eddie was making an analogy to pleasure itself, then how you thought that would make sense bears quite a bit of explanation. Because you didn't "choose" to be straight that way, so why would anyone else have to? What made you even think of that?
This might be a good time to mention this as well:"It has been proven that harm comes to gays during their actions too." Combined with (specifically regarding your determination of said "harm"):"I make my decision on what is harmful for my own life, not someone else's." So, if you don't make such declarations for anyone else, then the harm was "proven" on...you. Because there's nobody else it could be.
And that's fine, if that's the case, because I know you didn't want to have that attraction. It would explain a lot, though. You want to argue that it's a choice so that everyone has to be like you. So you don't feel flawed like the Bible would have you feel. That would explain why you latched onto the "baseball" comment, even though the idea of choosing to be gay or straight based off of pleasure is completely antithetical to everything else that he's said. It would also explain why you think homosexuality is immoral, even though you said that things that are sin are not automatically so, without ever being able to fill in that missing link between those two concepts. It really does cover quite a bit of ground regarding your behavior.
Or, maybe you've just been disingenuous without thinking about the ramifications of your words. Either way, just be honest.
"You want to argue that it's a choice so that everyone has to be like you." .... Where do I say that?
DeleteContext:"And that's fine, if that's the case, because I know you didn't want to have that attraction. It would explain a lot, though." Followed by:"That would explain why you latched onto the "baseball" comment, even though the idea of choosing to be gay or straight based off of pleasure is completely antithetical to everything else that he's said." It's hypothetical, clearly. Is that all you have, taking something out of context in order to act as if I did something dishonest? You'll have to do better.
Delete"Context:" ... does that mean I did NOT say everyone one has to be like me? Because you're doing a poor job of putting words into my mouth and trying to defend that. That doesn't seem very honest. Isn't that one of your hang-ups concerning morality? That lying is immoral? I'll ask again: Where do I say that? Try to answer this time.
Delete"... does that mean I did NOT say everyone one has to be like me? Because you're doing a poor job of putting words into my mouth and trying to defend that."
DeleteThat's probably because I never tried to put words in your mouth. The phrase "if that's the case" makes your complaint null and void. I'm also not sure what part of the phrase "it's hypothetical, clearly" is giving you trouble.
Is this really all you have to say? I'll keep repeating the context of what I said for months if necessary. You're not going to get anywhere with this, so if you can't address anything else you might as well stop making yourself look foolish.
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure that when you claimed I said: "everyone has to be like me", that you had no actual proof of that. You are just making that up. I never said everyone has to be like me. There's ANOTHER lie I can add onto that list you keep asking me for.
DeleteAGAIN: Where do I say that? If you can't bring it, then quit saying it. Unless you ARE the liar I keep calling you, then DON'T bring the evidence that is asked for. Simple choice, even for the democrat: lie or don't lie. YOUR CHOICE. I guess (in CONTEXT of this conversation) you may have been BORN a liar. You CHOSE to be a democrat, that instantly infers you prefer lying also. Which would explain the love of sexual immorality (being a democrat). Wow, who would have thought "being born that way" would include such mundane nuances as what political party you would CHOOSE. Being born a liar and sexual pervert means you will be a democrat, caring about safe/wholesome families means you will be a republican. I CHOSE to drink coffee this morning instead of orange juice, does that mean I was born preferring coffee over orange juice?
"Thanks, I just wanted to make sure that when you claimed I said: "everyone has to be like me", that you had no actual proof of that."
DeleteExcept I never even suggested you said it, and the context makes that abundantly clear. That's a lie I can pin on you, if you want to play that game. "Another" would mean you've already demonstrated at least one, by the way, which you have not. Another lie on your part.
"AGAIN: Where do I say that?"
AGAIN, it was a hypothetical explanation for your behavior, consistent with your comments. If you want to protest, explain how your comments otherwise make sense, instead of throwing a temper tantrum. Like I said, I can demonstrate the context for months if that's the path you want to take.
And since my posts above expose flaws in your argument, your little rant his is met with...ready?:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"
"AGAIN, it was a hypothetical explanation for your behavior, consistent with your comments." ... completely unfounded. Bring ANY statement that I've made where I insinuate that people all have to be like me. The thing you miss, here, is that I've never said anything like that, but you still need to lie and put words into my mouth that I have never said or insinuated. I never realized that democrats can use the word "context" to create statements, attribute them to others, then whine about the statements being made.
Delete"tantrum" ... is that what you call it when you get another beat-down during a simple conversation?
"... completely unfounded. Bring ANY statement that I've made where I insinuate that people all have to be like me."
DeleteIt relies on the notion that you've had a gay encounter. Look up "hypothetical".
"I never realized that democrats can use the word "context" to create statements, attribute them to others, then whine about the statements being made."
I don't generalize about Republicans like that. I don't expect anyone, regardless of ideology, to take a sentence out of context and continue to make a desperate argument based off of it because they can't address the points made. That's just you. Want to demonstrate how the context doesn't change the meaning? Try it. I know you can't.
"... is that what you call it when you get another beat-down during a simple conversation?"
No, I really don't consider unhinged rants containing lines like "Being born a liar and sexual pervert means you will be a democrat, caring about safe/wholesome families means you will be a republican" to be even mildly effective, much less a "beat-down".
Let's take inventory, shall we?
1) The miscegenation point: dodged, claimed to have been addressed without any citation of such. Fail.
2) Your generalization and couples that don't engage in anal sex: not adequately addressed, since you cite "sin" which by your definition includes jaywalking and things that are not even "immoral". Fail.
3) Your ability to judge harm for people you don't even know: you tried to act as if, somehow, I might have been saying that you personally interfered in countless relationships, instead of addressing the obvious meaning of my words. Disgracefully disingenuous and a massive fail.
4) The question of why anyone would choose something that harms them: dodged quite gracelessly. Fail.
5) The baseball analogy somehow being directly meaningful to "pleasure": debunked using citations from both the article and the comments, without response from you. Nor did you explain how or why you would so gleefully latch on to your argument that Eddie was saying that people chose orientation based off of pleasure when that's not even consistent with your story of how you "chose" to be straight. Outstanding, glaring fail.
6) Your rather pathetic taking of words out of context in order to dishonestly pretend I said something I clearly did not, also known as bearing false witness. Epic, presumably hell-binding fail.
So, no, especially when considering you started off acting as if someone had to be a "moron" to make the claim that there's no harm involved in homosexuality as opposed to heterosexuality, I'm not seeing the supposed "beat-down" you've performed here. Apparently if you think you're right, that's so powerful in itself that I'm supposed to think I'm wrong, without you having to make any serious effort on your own. A tad arrogant, I would say, if that's the case.
Anything else?
1) answered, addressed and then promptly ignored
Delete2) same
3) same
4) same
5) same
6) same
Go back and read what is written. And, for GOD'S SAKE, please get someone to help you.
Sorry, your empty assertions bear no weight. You'll have to be more specific. Seriously, if you're going to make the call of "moron", then you don't want to prove yourself to be a "sub-moron", do you? Make an effort, for once in your life.
Delete"Seriously, if you're going to make the call of "moron", then you don't want to prove yourself to be a "sub-moron", do you?" ... Do you mean the use of "moron" in this statement that I made(?): " And don't give me the debunked theory that "no one gets hurt". It has been proven that harm comes to gays during their actions too. Only a moron would attempt that excuse.". Well, if you're going to use that excuse then the use would fit. Otherwise, where else did I use that word in this article?
DeleteYes, obviously that's what I'm referencing. Now, how about substantiating your claims of how you supposedly answered everything I listed above?
Delete
DeleteWhen I said: "Well, if you're going to use that excuse then the use would fit.
You answered: "Yes, obviously that's what I'm referencing."
Well, at least we've gotten that point straightened out.
Now, if you get a chance ... address my "let's recap" account. That one should be just as interesting as you just admitting you're a moron.
"Now, if you get a chance ... address my "let's recap" account."
DeleteYes, because you restating your baseless argument really requires serious consideration. How about this:address my post above, explaining how you adequately covered the points I brought up. Why is it you think that I have to explain myself, and you don't? Seems rather arrogant, and I know you don't want to portray yourself that way, right?
Incidentally, the fact that you called me a moron isn't equal to admitting to being a moron. Another instance of you thinking your opinion is fact.
Delete"Another instance of you thinking your opinion is fact." ... Is that a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black'?
DeleteNo, because like all your other charges, you can't substantiate it. Thanks for not denying it, though.
DeleteSo, still waiting on you to address my earlier post. Are you not up to the task, or what?
Does Eddie pay you for this? If so, how do I get a cut of the action? Obviously, I can be just as much a moron as you. I just don't live in denial.
DeleteAd hominem:"Is your only option to attack posters who point out your failures?"
DeleteWhat makes you think I'm "attacking" you? Pointing out facts isn't an 'ad hominem' attack. If that is the best you can do to explain your behavior, then you really DO live in denial.
DeleteBy the way, I haven't forgotten your refusal to demonstrate your supposed "beat-down" of my argument. If your aim is to distract me from that, you've failed there as well as everyting else.
DeleteBeat down? Well, you claim homosexuality occurs in nature, so it is NATURAL. You claim there is NO HARM. You claim there are CONSENTING ADULTS involved. You claim their right to LIFE/LIBERTY/PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. That's 4 parameters you REQUIRE while defending your demands that homosexuals get marriage rights. Yet, when it is pointed out that polygamy fits within ALL 4 parameters, you say polygamy is wrong and should stay illegal. Yeah, I would say you were sufficiently beat down while you demand rights for one group but deny another group those same rights based ONLY on your bigoted viewpoints. You have brought NO viable reasons to deny polygamists what you demand for gays.
DeleteUnless you've got a new reason. You've been severely beaten down. Being a Christian, I'll be glad to help you back up, but when you start lying again and act(?) like a bigot, I'll beat you back down again.
This section of the thread had nothing to do with polygamy. Did you forget that you jumped to that topic, and the "beat-down" comment was in reference to the "harm" argument? Hilarious. You don't even know where you are on a message board, but you think you have dominance over me.
DeleteI know where I'm at. I'm in a discussion on "human sexuality is complicated". With you proving that by supporting one sexuality, for reasons told, and denouncing another sexuality based on you being a bigot. Sure is complicated around here.
DeleteAnd, you can't handle your portion of the discussion.
"And, you can't handle your portion of the discussion."
DeleteSays the person who claims that one has to be a "moron" to argue that homosexuality doesn't cause harm, yet can't address any such arguments.
The more you attack, the more I'll show how you've made yourself vulnerable. You can't win this way.
Your opinion of my intelligence is not a "fact". Good job proving your confusion between the two concepts.
ReplyDeleteYou know, if you actually took a moment to think before posting, you wouldn't embarrass yourself like that. And I mean genuinely embarrass yourself, not "to say something I don't like" the way you mean that sort of thing.
"Your opinion of my intelligence is not a "fact"." ... No, but the continued examples of your intelligence shows how close to fact my opinion is.
ReplyDeleteGood, then you admit you were wrong when you called it a "fact" earlier. You demonstrate your own stupidity, making your claims of mine much less credible. Keep up the good work.
DeleteSo your only available argument point left is to say I'm stupid? Wow I never realized the scope of how incompetent democrats are until I started reading the stuff here.
DeleteYou can't discuss honestly about ANY subject. And, I've got first-hand experience with your ability to honestly discuss. It is nill. In fact your last tactic before running out of excuses was to start correcting spelling errors. Yes, keep up the good work. You may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but at least you're in the shed.
"So your only available argument point left is to say I'm stupid?"
DeleteYou tell me. You claimed a "fact", then you rescinded it. Was that stupidity or dishonesty on your part? If there's another option, let's hear it.
"And, I've got first-hand experience with your ability to honestly discuss. It is nill."
That would rely on the notion that you're honest. Hilarious.
"In fact your last tactic before running out of excuses was to start correcting spelling errors."
That would only make sense if I corrected spelling errors instead of addressing your arguments. I eagerly await your failure to provide such instances.
"That would only make sense if I corrected spelling errors instead of addressing your arguments." ... When you START addressing my arguments, you mean.
DeleteGo ahead and point to one argument of yours I've ignored. Please. You're really phoning it in today.
Delete"The media keeps track of the number of atheists helping out in disasters? That's impressive." ... A thing called google. You may want to try it.
ReplyDelete" I'm pretty sure there aren't many people who are interviewed who make it a huge point to mention that they're atheists, under almost any circumstances." ... I'd be embarrassed to say that too.
"Your assumption is not my responsibility." ... No, but your statements are: "Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, or being persuaded in any way, shape or form that any religion is better or more valid than another.". Are you denying that you said that? Are you going to take "responsibility" for your own statement?
"... A thing called google."
DeleteIf nobody keeps track of who's an atheist and who isn't in a natural disaster setting, it's not going to show up on google. Why would that be monitored at all?
"... I'd be embarrassed to say that too."
Not only a predictably lame insult, but it undermines your claim. Not smart.
"Are you denying that you said that? Are you going to take "responsibility" for your own statement?"
I never denied I said that. In fact, I cited the second half while you were fixated on the first for no explicable reason.
So what's your point?
Nothing undermines my claims. You have brought nothing because you have nothing. So, now you revert to whining about being who you are.
Delete"I never denied I said that." ... you will. Since you don't deny saying that, please answer the question. You know, the one you've been dodging for quite some time.
"Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays? Your assumption is not my responsibility." ... in this statement you are denying you said it (that makes you a liar). Yet, there it is ...in black and white. So, how does the "captive audience" aspect occur in a park setting? THAT is your BIG fear of religion and you can't even answer the question about it. What a dodger. Should I start calling you a charger or neon since you DODGE so much?
It appears that just like polygamy, you fear religion for no viable reason too. Does that increase your bigotness? Since you have no acceptable or reasonable excuse to hate these lifestyles that you hate so much (that makes you a bigot).
"You have brought nothing because you have nothing."
DeleteAs opposed to your claim tht the media keeps track of how many atheists help in natural disasters?
"So, now you revert to whining about being who you are."
That made no sense.
"... in this statement you are denying you said it (that makes you a liar)."
No, I'm not denying I said it. In fact, it admits that I made the comment and that "captive audience" was part of it:"Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays?" Note "that comment (acknowledging there was said comment, and "captive audience" was part of it).
"So, how does the "captive audience" aspect occur in a park setting?"
That wasn't the part of my comment that applied to public displays.
"It appears that just like polygamy, you fear religion for no viable reason too."
You still need to explain how wanting all religions to be treated equally is "fear" of religion.
"Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays?" ... Really? Are you going to deny it even MORE? Here, I'll repost YOUR statement AGAIN: "Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, OR BEING PERSUADED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that any religion is better or more valid than another.".
DeleteFor ease of recognition, I highlited the words you used but don't understand their meanings. Is "park setting" included in your "any way, shape or form" qualifier? See what I mean about you not being an equal to me in discussing honestly?
I'll wait for further denials to come from you. Being such a fine example of morality that you are, from being an atheist and democrat, I'm sure you won't LIE again and deny you said that.
"... Really? Are you going to deny it even MORE?"
DeleteSince you're wrong, I'll deny what you say as long as I'm breathing.
"Here, I'll repost YOUR statement AGAIN: "Freedom from religion means not being a captive audience to anyone else's religious views, OR BEING PERSUADED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that any religion is better or more valid than another.".
Thanks for highlighting the part of the statement that public displays applied to.
"Is "park setting" included in your "any way, shape or form" qualifier?
That would clearly fit into "any way, shape or form", yes.
"See what I mean about you not being an equal to me in discussing honestly?"
Look at what you've done in this single post. Here's where you started, with my quote:"Where did I claim "captive audience" was the part of that comment that applied to public displays?" Note "captive audience", which is what you've been harping on specifically regarding public displays. Then you highlight the part of my statement that's separate from the part about captive audiences.
Now, maybe that has nothing to do with honesty. Maybe you're just so wildly confused that you didn't understand how I was pointing to the second half of that sentence regarding public displays, then you highlight that second half and ask if "park setting" is included in that very same phrase.
To make it perfectly clear, even to you;you've highlighted the part of the comment I was referring to, contrary to the "captive audience" clause that you were mindlessly obsessing over. Congratulations.
And sorry for repeating that so much, but since I have to specify that genetics applies before birth and environmental factors apply after birth, it's apparent that I have to break everything down Barney-style or you'll claim I said something wildly opposite of what I clearly did. Barney meaning the big purple dinosaur that kids seem to love, not Barney Rubble, Barney Frank, etc. Is all that clear enough?
"That would clearly fit into "any way, shape or form", yes." ... That's what I thought. So you admit you cannot discuss honestly. Thank you for bringing more evidence of your bigotry, too.
Delete"So you admit you cannot discuss honestly."
DeleteBecause you highlighted the clause of the sentence that applied to public displays, after you kept asking how the other clause applied to it, and I kept telling you that wasn't the relevant part of the sentence? It's consistent with what I said all along.
I'm also curious who you're claiming I'm demonstrating bigotry against in that comment. Is the claim that I'm bigoted against you because I criticized your post? That would be hilarious.
When you can explain how a religious display in a public park is considered "captive audience" you MAY have a point. Until that happens you have NO point and have lost yet another argument where you bring in your bigoted fear of others into your demands for national law. When you can show a just cause to ban religious displays in public settings, it would sure help your cause. But just using your ingrown fear of organized religion is simply bigoted. You may be right. You may not be from the slums of New York, you may be from the deep dark woods of Kentucky or Mississippi. Where "cuz" is another term for 'future wife'. That's where in-breeding has caused so much stupidity that you think you are very clever.
DeleteCome on, I dare you, show how pubic religious displays are causing "captive" audiences. Are you going to watch the Easter Egg hunt at the White House this weekend? That must be just the kind of "endorsement" that you fear when you demand that religion stay out of government. 'Cause, everyone knows that if those kids are allowed to hunt for Easter Eggs at the White House then President Obama (himself) is telling every person present that if they don't follow Christianity they will be forced out of the country. Yep, that must be the message you envision happening to that "captive audience" during that PUBLIC display of religion at a GOVERNMENT BUILDING. Otherwise, you could have NO possible complaint about an Easter Egg hunt happening on PUBLIC LAND.
"When you can explain how a religious display in a public park is considered "captive audience" you MAY have a point."
DeleteI've said this whole time that the "captive audience" part of that sentence wasn't what applied to public displays, so you'll have a tough time explaining how making that explanation is key to my argument.
"When you can show a just cause to ban religious displays in public settings, it would sure help your cause."
(Emphasis yours):"OR BEING PERSUADED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM that any religion is better or more valid than another."
"'Cause, everyone knows that if those kids are allowed to hunt for Easter Eggs at the White House then President Obama (himself) is telling every person present that if they don't follow Christianity they will be forced out of the country."
That's a straw man argument, since I never said or suggested anything like that. It's an interesting standard, though. By that logic, we could teach Islam as fact in public schools, because as long as nobody's forcing you to face Mecca and pray five times a day, there's no problem at all. Would you agree with that?
So, are you sure you're back to "captive audience" now? Because earlier you wanted to know if "public displays" fit into the category of "any way, shape or form", the part of the sentence that would apply to "public displays". It's not clear how it wouldn't fit into a category that includes "any way, shape or form, since the very description is all-encompassing, but that's what you were wondering previously.
"That's a straw man argument, since I never said or suggested anything like that." ... That is the nature of your comment. You think that if someone reads the Bible in public then everyone around him will be forced to convert or end up in hell. Yes, it IS a strawman argument and you're the one trying to use it.
Delete"So, are you sure you're back to "captive audience" now?" ... I am. Have you thought of a reason that there could possibly BE a "captive audience" setting from "public displays"? I don't think you can, and that is why you are continually diverting the conversation to an area that isn't even in dispute. And, since there is NO captive audience aspect in religious public displays, then you cannot use that as a reason to deny the CONSTITUTIONAL right of Americans to practice their religion as they see fit. Nothing is being forced onto you, you are free to wander away from them any time you please and you are allowed to counter their statements using your OWN freedom of speech.
"... That is the nature of your comment."
DeleteNo, it's wild, baseless extrapolation.
"You think that if someone reads the Bible in public then everyone around him will be forced to convert or end up in hell."
What, on the public street, or something? No, that's perfectly allowable, as long as it's not abrasively performed. How you got to that from displays is unclear.
"Yes, it IS a strawman argument and you're the one trying to use it."
Again, you indicate you have no idea what a strawman argument is.
"Have you thought of a reason that there could possibly BE a "captive audience" setting from "public displays"?"
No, because it was never my claim.
"And, since there is NO captive audience aspect in religious public displays, then you cannot use that as a reason to deny the CONSTITUTIONAL right of Americans to practice their religion as they see fit."
That's fine, because I never tried to use "captive audience" against public displays. However, what does it have to do with the rights of Americans? You used the Easter Egg Hunt as an example earlier, but now it's supposed to apply to the rank and file of citizens? How, exactly, did the conversation suddenly become about individuals preaching their faith, as opposed to government endorsement of religious beliefs?
"No, because it was never my claim." , "That's fine, because I never tried to use "captive audience" against public displays." ... LIAR! It has been shown that you did IN FACT say captive audience applies to public displays. Why do you lie so much? Is lying a sin in atheism? Or something you do 'as needed' ? Which proves my claim you have morals that shift constantly and as needed to support your irresponsible beliefs.
Delete"as opposed to government endorsement of religious beliefs?" ... In the history of the US, what religion has ever been "endorsed" by the US government? Do you have that information? Or, is this fear of religion just like your fear of polygamy ... simply made up in your mind?
You democrats sure are bigoted and hypocritical in your stances on so many subjects. I especially like how you democrats refuse to provide proof for your imaginated claims. I challenge you to bring proof that the US "endorses" any one religion. I'll make it easier for you. Bring proof that the US government "endorses" ANY religion.
You see, your illogical fears just don't pan out. They never have and they never will. You know why? Because it is against the law for the US government to "endorse" any religion.
"... LIAR! It has been shown that you did IN FACT say captive audience applies to public displays."
DeleteNo, it hasn't.
" ... In the history of the US, what religion has ever been "endorsed" by the US government?"
Let's look at the actual question, and not half of it:"How, exactly, did the conversation suddenly become about individuals preaching their faith, as opposed to government endorsement of religious beliefs?" Can you answer that question, or did you feel some random urge to change the subject?
"Let's look at the actual question, and not half of it:" ... Ok, let's look at the actual question. You changed it (or is that your way of avoiding answering?). Now, including the entire question: at what point in American history has it endorsed any religion? I mean, if you have a giant fear of the government telling you what religion to follow, then you must have some kind of example that it has happened at one time or another, right? You would seem like quite the fear-mongering conspiracist if you couldn't do that. But, hey, I'm not telling you how to live.
DeleteDid you know that you made a claim that if gay marriage is legalized ALL related court cases would cease? Well, didn't Massachusetts legalize gay marriage in 2004? This is the year 2013 and court cases are STILL tying up the legal system in that state and in federal courts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
In Connecticut, the court cases are STILL going on despite that state legalizing gay marriage several years ago.
In Iowa it was legalized in 2008. Guess what ... that's right, court cases STILL going on 5 years later.
Maine was one of the first states to have it voted for by the public (last year) ... THEY STILL have cases going.
The FACTS are that every state that has legalized gay marriage still has it's court system being tied up by cases involving legalizing gay marriage.
Do you see a pattern going on here? You probably don't, but I certainly do. And that pattern is that legalizing gay marriage DID NOT STOP THE COURT CASES.
Would that mean that EVERY time you make that claim it should be considered a LIE? Again, I'm not telling you how to live your life, just noting how you behave.
"... Ok, let's look at the actual question. You changed it (or is that your way of avoiding answering?)."
DeleteHow did I change it?
"I mean, if you have a giant fear of the government telling you what religion to follow, then you must have some kind of example that it has happened at one time or another, right?"
No. For one thing, I didn't say "government telling you what religion to follow" or anything like that. I said "endorsed". Also, concerns about the future don't have to have examples from the past. By that logic, nothing can possibly be a concern the first time it comes around. "Hey, this plague could wipe out a third of Europe" - "Nope, it's never happened before..." It's logically bankrupt.
Also, putting "God" on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance endorses Christianity. These are, in fact, things that people like you use as examples of how the USA is a "Christian nation".
Now, can you explain how this conversation suddenly involved individual speech, as opposed to displays on public property? You weren't trying to avoid answering that question, were you?
Incidentally, I love how you posted your "Massachusetts" garbage here. You must really think you have a brilliant argument, so it'll be even more fun than usual to watch you stomp and scream over your impotence to make that argument make any sense whatsoever.
Delete"Also, putting "God" on money and in the Pledge of Allegiance endorses Christianity." ... How does it single out Christianity? Isn't there a God in almost all religions? Which God is mentioned on our money? Does it say: In Jesus Christ we trust? Because Jesus Christ is the Christian God.
Delete"These are, in fact, things that people like you use as examples of how the USA is a "Christian nation"." ... I will call this a Christian nation because 90% of us ARE Christian. When 90% of us become gay, you can call America a gay nation.
"You must really think you have a brilliant argument, " ... I do have a brilliant argument. That's why you avoid answering the questions I have for you. The problem is that the "Masssachusetts garbage" is what proves your latest fear-mongering idea incorrect. Court cases do in fact continue unimpeded AFTER legalizing gay marriage. That makes YOU a LIAR.
"... How does it single out Christianity? Isn't there a God in almost all religions?"
DeleteIt doesn't say "In a god we trust". "God", by itself and captialized, is specific. Besides that, why should the government declare that there's any deity at all? Why would that be their business or concern at all?
"Because Jesus Christ is the Christian God."
No, "God" is the Christian god. Jesus is his son.
"... I will call this a Christian nation because 90% of us ARE Christian."
That would be "predominantly" Christian. There's a difference, Some Middle Eastern countries are Muslim nations, not simply because of the population but because of the laws.
"When 90% of us become gay, you can call America a gay nation."
I wouldn't use that phrase.
"... I do have a brilliant argument. That's why you avoid answering the questions I have for you."
I already answered it on the other thread.
"Court cases do in fact continue unimpeded AFTER legalizing gay marriage. That makes YOU a LIAR."
No, because I'm not talking about legalization for a specific state. All-cap words don't make you any less wrong, so sorry.
"That's why you avoid answering the questions I have for you."
Had to re-post that one. Note that you didn't explain how you switched over to individual speech, nor did you explain how I changed the question after you made that accusation.
"The problem is that the "Masssachusetts [sic] garbage"..."
DeleteAlso, a minor point. You should really copy and paste if you're going to put quotes around phrases. I spelled the state's name correctly. You did not, so you're misrepresenting me.
That's just common courtesy. If you care about such things.
"No, "God" is the Christian god. Jesus is his son." ... Don't go there. An atheist knows NOTHING about Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit. Don't try to tell me my business.
Delete"Some Middle Eastern countries are Muslim nations, not simply because of the population but because of the laws." ... That is absolutely right. Do you have any proof that OUR nation did that at ANY time? No? Then you are raising a strawman argument that has no base in reality or possibility. You are fear-mongering by lying about something that has not ever happened and could not ever happen in the US.
"No, because I'm not talking about legalization for a specific state. " ... When did you specify anything else? I remember you saying the court cases will stop when gay marriage is legalized. Gay marriage is legal in several states yet the court cases continue to mount. Then you change your stance. How atheistic of you.
"Note that you didn't explain how you switched over to individual speech, nor did you explain how I changed the question after you made that accusation." ... Yes, those were fully explained when you brought it up.
"Also, a minor point. You should really copy and paste if you're going to put quotes around phrases. I spelled the state's name correctly. You did not, so you're misrepresenting me." ... I will consider the source of who is making that "minor point": a self admitted liar who is a bigot towards sexual deviances and brings hateful racist remarks into discussions on choices.
"That's just common courtesy. If you care about such things." ... Common courtesy? This IS a liberal blog site, isn't it? Point out ANY "common courtesy" happening here. Use one of those main articles that Eddie writes and point out some of that liberal "common courtesy". Believe me, I care about common courtesy, but when in rome do as the romans do.
""God", by itself and captialized, is specific." ... I'm probably making a mistake by doing this, but I took you at your word (mistake) and looked up "God". I used this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
DeleteI still don't see the "Christian God" as being the only one that capitalizes the word. Maybe you can help me out and bring some proof of your claim (ha ha ha) that "God" ONLY refers to the Christian God. Can you do that? When you get done, re-answer the question about how the US is forcing you to be a Christian.
Here is one of the key sentences in that wiki article about God: "There are many names for God, and different names are attached to different cultural ideas about who God is and what attributes he possesses.". I notice that each time God is mentioned the word is capitalized. Does that mean the article is ONLY talking about the Christian God?
"Besides that, why should the government declare that there's any deity at all?" ... Because the US is a Christian nation, with laws based on Christian values. And, it's a good thing too. If we based our laws on atheistic values, our nation would be 90% full of hypocritical haters, racists, liars and fear-mongers (people like you). And we've got enough of them (people like you) already, on the democratic side of things.
Do you see why an atheist cannot discuss religion with anyone? It is because you don't know what you are talking about.
"... Don't go there. An atheist knows NOTHING about Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit."
DeleteI find it funny that someone who thinks they know so much always acts so defensive and scared whenever the subject of religion comes up.
"... That is absolutely right. Do you have any proof that OUR nation did that at ANY time?"
I didn't claim they did. The point was that America is not a Christian nation. Thanks for supporting my argument.
"... When did you specify anything else?"
I never needed to specify anything else. Why would I want gay marriage to be legal in one state, but not others?
"... Yes, those were fully explained when you brought it up."
Link?
"... I will consider the source of who is making that "minor point": a self admitted liar who is a bigot towards sexual deviances and brings hateful racist remarks into discussions on choices."
I never "admitted" any such thing, and you haven't explained what's "racist" about anything I've said. Besides, you can always make up things about people in order to avoid accountability, can't you? Maybe you should try to be a better person instead.
"Use one of those main articles that Eddie writes and point out some of that liberal "common courtesy"."
I'm not accountable for anyone else's actions. And if you really want to make an argument for how bad liberals are, it makes no sense at all to do every single thing you complain about liberals doing. Just a tip.
"When you get done, re-answer the question about how the US is forcing you to be a Christian."
I never said anyone was forcing anyone to be a Christian. Try representing my argument honestly, and you'll find understanding to be much easier.
"I notice that each time God is mentioned the word is capitalized."
Did you notice that "a god" is never used? Did you notice this?:"This article is about the term "God" in the context of monotheism and henotheism. For the general concept of "a god", see Deity." Bonus points if you can spot the word that is not capitalized. Extra bonus points if you notice that the entire article lists names that other religions use, instead of "God".
".. Because the US is a Christian nation, with laws based on Christian values."
No, it isn't. What do you have to support that, because the fact that stealing and killing are illegal, and are mentioned in the Ten Commandments? Do we have a law about honoring your parents? Idolatry? Coveting? Mixing fabrics or eating shellfish, based off of OT laws? Anything at all?
"If we based our laws on atheistic values, our nation would be 90% full of hypocritical haters, racists, liars and fear-mongers (people like you)."
So, if you didn't believe in God, you would lose your moral compass? Sounds like a crutch to me. Personally, I don't need an invisible father figure to recognize how to respect other people and act accordingly. Outside of your blinding bigotry, it's not clear why you think any atheist does.
"Do you see why an atheist cannot discuss religion with anyone?"
Actually, atheists generally know more about religion than religious people:http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928
"The point was that America is not a Christian nation." ... Your point is that you fear the government telling you to follow a religion. You've brought that fear several times. You even went as far as claiming that "In God We Trust" being on our money is saying that the US endorses Christianity. Another LIE brought by you. You can't even define "God" without changing the subject.
Delete"Did you notice that "a god" is never used?" ... Actually, YES I did notice that. You know why? Because YOU said: "No, "God" is the Christian god.", so I looked up "God" and not "a god". Did you want me to look up something that you were NOT talking about? Or should I have looked up what you WERE talking about?
"So, if you didn't believe in God, you would lose your moral compass?" ... Yes. Most immoral people call that a crutch. I call it assurance. Your morals allow bigotry, lying, hatred, murder and stealing. Do you believe in an after-life? If so, then you have a crutch also. If not, then you are on your own and you will live your life as YOU feel without concern for your fellow man. That is "human nature". Your favorite controlling factor over daily lives. Are you going to deny that?
"Personally, I don't need an invisible father figure to recognize how to respect other people and act accordingly." ... Then why haven't you started DOING that, then? Recognition and performing are 2 different things.
"Do we have a law about honoring your parents? Idolatry? Coveting? Mixing fabrics or eating shellfish, based off of OT laws? " ...
"Honoring parents"? No, but it is a wise old saying that you've used several times to your kids and grandkids and probably to many of the few soldiers that are under your command.
Idolatry? Yes,
Coveting? Yes.
Mixing fabrics? No, but it is very wise because of the inability of mixed clothing to work as well as non-mixed.
Shellfish? Again, we should. Have you noticed how un-healthy fish products are? Shellfish are bottom-feaders, that means they eat all the poison that people are putting into the waters. Including metals, chemicals and other dangerous things. Would you eat any shellfish that comes from eastern Japan? Why not if shellfish isn't bad for you?
"Actually, atheists" ... Bring a link that works. What study/survey is your article talking about? There is none linked to the article. Bringing more lies, again?
"... Your point is that you fear the government telling you to follow a religion."
DeleteYou don't think that's something to avoid?
"You even went as far as claiming that "In God We Trust" being on our money is saying that the US endorses Christianity. Another LIE brought by you."
That was an endorsement of Christianity, yes. Any difference in your opinion does not constitute a "LIE" on my part.
"... Actually, YES I did notice that. You know why? Because YOU said: "No, "God" is the Christian god.", so I looked up "God" and not "a god". Did you want me to look up something that you were NOT talking about?"
No, I wanted you to notice that the article you cited continually refers to a specific deity. Hence the capitalization.
"... Yes. Most immoral people call that a crutch. I call it assurance."
If you claim you need that control over you, then that's all you. I'm stronger than that, personally.
"Your morals allow bigotry, lying, hatred, murder and stealing."
No, they don't.
"Do you believe in an after-life?"
No, idiot. I'm an atheist.
"If not, then you are on your own and you will live your life as YOU feel without concern for your fellow man."
Wrong. I don't need to believe in any constructed figure of faith to guide me. I have plenty of concern for my fellow man based on my own morals.
"That is "human nature". Your favorite controlling factor over daily lives. Are you going to deny that?"
It's human nature not to have any concern for other people? I wouldn't go that far. Would you?
"... Then why haven't you started DOING that, then?"
Your question contains an assumption. Logically bankrupt.
"No, but it is a wise old saying that you've used several times to your kids and grandkids and probably to many of the few soldiers that are under your command. "
If our laws are based off of religious beliefs, why is there no law for that?
"Idolatry? Yes,"
Really? What are they?
"Coveting? Yes."
Wow. No, there are definitely no laws against coveting. That's what our entire economy is based off of. There would be no advertising or marketing if people were not allowed to covet.
"Mixing fabrics? No, but it is very wise because of the inability of mixed clothing to work as well as non-mixed."
Again, why no law? Why is there nothing except murder and theft, and lying under some very specific circumstances, if our laws are based on faith? Why are all of them objectively justifiable?
"... Bring a link that works. What study/survey is your article talking about? There is none linked to the article. Bringing more lies, again?"
It's not hard to find:http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey-Who-Knows-What-About-Religion.aspx All you had to do was to search for it within the page the link provided.
From the page:"Overall, the three groups that perform best in this survey are atheists and agnostics (who get an average of 20.9 out of 32 questions right), Jews (20.5 questions right on average) and Mormons (20.3 questions right)."
Christians averaged 15.7. Here's my favorite part;percentage with 17 or more correct:Christians 45, atheist/agnostic 82. 82! That's 37 points higher, in case you're too lazy to do the math.
"You don't think that's something to avoid?" ... Yes, I do. I don't think the government should tell me what religion to follow or any religion for that matter. However, I don't have some unfounded/irrational fear that it may happen, because there are laws created to prevent it. And, those laws have worked for 250 years. Can you point out where the government has endorsed any religion? If not, then your fear would be no different than someone who fears giant aliens destroying the earth. And they use that fear to drive their anger. That is what you are doing with religion and government endorsement of it. IT JUST CAN'T HAPPEN.
Delete"I have plenty of concern for my fellow man based on my own morals." ... Based on some old book, I'll bet. And, constantly changing according to how you feel any given time.
"Really? What are they?" ... Stupid. Is polygamy something that Mormons worship their God for allowing? Are there laws against that? So, Mormons cannot worship their God properly because of laws against it.
"Wow. No, there are definitely no laws against coveting." ... Let's see, what causes the bank robber to rob? What causes the government employee to lie? What caused Bill Clinton to cheat constantly? Coveting. They covet something they don't have and use that feeling to get it. Your binary thinking is laying waste to all of your points.
Why didn't you address the concern over shell-fish? Does that one hit your point too hard?
"However, I don't have some unfounded/irrational fear that it may happen, because there are laws created to prevent it."
DeleteWhere did I say I thought it would happen?
"... Based on some old book, I'll bet. And, constantly changing according to how you feel any given time."
No, not based on any book, and not changing based on mood. You have nothing to justify your claims. And meanwhile, do you remember that you lied about me changing my profession over the last year, then you asked why you can't do that since I supposedly lie? Obviously your old book isn't helping to guide you very well, now is it?
"... Stupid. Is polygamy something that Mormons worship their God for allowing? Are there laws against that? So, Mormons cannot worship their God properly because of laws against it."
What the hell are you babbling about? Polygamy's been grounds for excommunication within the church itself for a hundred and twenty years or so. And what would that have to do with idolatry? Just because there's a limit on religious freedom doesn't mean there are laws about idolatry.
" ... Let's see, what causes the bank robber to rob? What causes the government employee to lie? What caused Bill Clinton to cheat constantly? Coveting."
Which is why there are already laws against stealing, etc. Do you have evidence of anyone ever being charged with "coveting" as a crime? I bet you don't. Further, you don't always know what someone's motivation is. Does someone steal bread because they need to feed someone, or because they're compelled through kleptomania? Does a woman who steals her ex-husbands car not get charged with a crime because she was angry at all the time and money he spent on it, instead of actually wanting it for herself? It makes no difference, because theft is theft. "Coveting" isn't an additional charge recognized by the courts.
"Why didn't you address the concern over shell-fish? Does that one hit your point too hard?"
No, it falls into the same category as other Biblical rules that aren't reflected in our laws, contrary to your assertion that our laws are based on the Bible. It actually supports my point, it was simply superfluous considering all the other ammunition you provided for me. Why didn't you answer my question about why there's only laws against murder, theft, and lying in certain circumstances?
"Where did I say I thought it would happen?" ... That is your entire premise, isn't it? Isn't that why you have such a fear of religion ... because you think the government is going to tell you what to believe? Well, it hasn't happened and never will. We have laws to prevent that. And, those laws have worked for 250 years.
Delete"You have nothing to justify your claims." ... You're an atheist, aren't you? Justified.
"Obviously your old book isn't helping to guide you very well, now is it?" ... Well enough to outsmart an atheist regarding religion.
"contrary to your assertion that our laws are based on the Bible." ... Do you know what "based" means? Does it mean "copied"? No, I don't think it does. But, you can go with that assertion if you want. I think you look pretty stupid doing that, though.
Delete"Why didn't you answer my question about why there's only laws against murder, theft, and lying in certain circumstances?" ... Because it is a stupid question. There aren't "only" laws against murder, theft, lying.
"... That is your entire premise, isn't it?"
DeleteNo.
"Isn't that why you have such a fear of religion ... because you think the government is going to tell you what to believe?"
No, and I don't have any fear of religion. Care to explain how anyone can want every religion to be treated equally without being filled with "fear"?
"... You're an atheist, aren't you? Justified."
Sorry, one set of your bigoted assumptions doesn't justify another.
"... Well enough to outsmart an atheist regarding religion."
Really? From the clown who thought Jesus's words regarding divorce was a commentary on homosexuality, and who had to ask why lying was wrong if you did it about someone you didn't like? Right.
"... Do you know what "based" means? Does it mean "copied"? No, I don't think it does."
So, why is it that our laws are supposedly "based" on the Bible when all you can point to are murder, theft, and occasionally lying? Why are those things not conceivable by pretty much anyone as things to be prevented, regardless of religious guidance?
"... Because it is a stupid question. There aren't "only" laws against murder, theft, lying."
What other parallels are there? And why wouldn't such an explanation serve as an answer to the question? Make an argument instead of alluding to one.
"No." ... Ha ha. Atheistic morals in action again? You're a good poster-boy for your religion.
Delete"No, and I don't have any fear of religion." ... It sure shows the way you discuss about them. You absolutely refuse to allow religions to congregate in public parks because they may restrain people and cause them to be a "captive audience". THAT is a fear.
"Why are those things not conceivable by pretty much anyone as things to be prevented, regardless of religious guidance?" ... Well, take into consideration that YOU think lying is OK as long as YOU are the one doing it.
"Sorry, one set of your bigoted assumptions doesn't justify another." ... I'm not a bigot. Show in complete detail and in 500 words or more how I am. Have that report on my desk by morning. If you don't you will fail this class.
"... Ha ha. Atheistic morals in action again?"
DeleteWhat are you babbling about?
"You absolutely refuse to allow religions to congregate in public parks because they may restrain people and cause them to be a "captive audience"."
I never said anything about public parks, nor did that have anything to do with a captive audience.
"... Well, take into consideration that YOU think lying is OK as long as YOU are the one doing it."
Let's discard your baseless bullshit and have you actually answer a question for once. Why are those things not conceivable by pretty much anyone?
"... I'm not a bigot."
You generalize about groups. Remember, you asserted my personal actions based off of political affiliation. That's bigotry. It doesn't take 500 words to explain. Feel free to explain how what you do is not bigotry, in however many words you think it takes.
See how much more reasonable I am than you?
"What are you babbling about?" ... I thought you were just joking, but you really have no clue, do you?
Delete"See how much more reasonable I am than you?" ... Quite conceited on your part, isn't that? Since you are taking a stance that you will oppose a sexual deviance getting marriage rights based solely on the hypothetical that 4 or 5 wives MAY sue the government and then you oppose religion because people are "captive audiences" in public settings (parks) and then you support killing babies because they haven't actually been proven to be human until AFTER they are born. Oh, yes, you are VERY reasonable. LOL
"... I thought you were just joking, but you really have no clue, do you?"
DeleteYou asked me if that was my premise, I gave you a straightforward answer, and you then talk about my morals. No, I don't think even you have a clue what you're talking about.
"... Quite conceited on your part, isn't that?"
No, that's quite fair, actually. You've been accusing me of being a bigot non-stop for weeks, but I'm supposed to write 500 words? I took that garbage as a joke, so you should have taken the reply as the same. If you were serious, then obviously I'm much more reasonable than you. Either way, you lose.
"Since you are taking a stance that you will oppose a sexual deviance getting marriage rights based solely on the hypothetical that 4 or 5 wives MAY sue the government and then you oppose religion because people are "captive audiences" in public settings (parks) and then you support killing babies because they haven't actually been proven to be human until AFTER they are born."
There isn't a single true word in all of that. So yes, considering your skipping record of lies regarding my views, I'm clearly more reasonable than you are.
I also note you didn't address the question regarding murder and theft, nor did you explain how your behavior (which you seem quite proud of in its prejudiced nature) is not bigotry. I'll take that as a concession on those points, unless you answer them under the claim that you simply forgot to do it last time.
Which is quite reasonable, yet again, on my part.
"There isn't a single true word in all of that." ... All of it is absolutely true.
Delete"Which is quite reasonable, yet again, on my part." ... Lying isn't being reasonable.
"... All of it is absolutely true."
DeleteYou're not fooling anyone but yourself. You've had more than enough chances to substantiate those claims, and you've failed. Sorry, you lose.
"... Lying isn't being reasonable."
What "lying" are you referring to, specifically? You did address those things?
" You've had more than enough chances to substantiate those claims, and you've failed." ... I've hardly failed. You made claims that you oppose polygamy because you fear that 5 wives may sue each other for rights to the husbands money (first one proven). You've made claims that religion has no place in public places because of something called "captive audience" and you refused to accept that your use of "public setting" is equal to public park (second point proven). You've also made claims that a human baby is not human until it is born and used that to support abortion (third point proven). Are you really going to deny that?
Delete"You made claims that you oppose polygamy because you fear that 5 wives may sue each other for rights to the husbands money (first one proven)."
DeleteI made no such claims. You are, yet again, inserting your beliefs into my arguments.
"You've made claims that religion has no place in public places because of something called "captive audience" and you refused to accept that your use of "public setting" is equal to public park (second point proven)."
Bald-faced lie. First off, you didn't introduce the element of personal speech until after my comment, so you can't claim my comment reflected on it. Until then, it seemed like you were talking about Christmas displays on courthouse lawns and the like (which would actually be relevant to government endorsement of religion, unlike your wild tangent). Secondly, you are still attributing that to the first part of a two-part sentence with no basis whatsoever.
"You've also made claims that a human baby is not human until it is born and used that to support abortion (third point proven)."
I never said that.
"Are you really going to deny that?"
I'll deny your lies for as long as it takes. Incidentally, your assertions don't "prove" your claims all by themselves. Get over yourself, in all seriousness.
"First off, you didn't introduce the element of personal speech until after my comment, " ... First off, do you see why you have no clue? Because NOBODY is talking about "personal speech", are they? So, why are you even worried about anyone introducing personal speech?
Delete"it seemed like you were talking about Christmas displays on courthouse lawns and the like" ... And that proves what a doofus you are. No body can have a decent conversation with you if you can't even follow what has been said. You call me a liar for saying what I said, then you admit you said it. Wow.
"I'll deny your lies for as long as it takes." ... Of course you will, you're an atheist. You just admitted that I did not lie in the second point I made. So, in reality, none of what I said is a lie and you actually do as I just said you do. Too bad you are that kind of person.
"Because NOBODY is talking about "personal speech", are they?"
DeleteYou aren't? Then what are you talking about?
"And that proves what a doofus you are. No body can have a decent conversation with you if you can't even follow what has been said."
So now, you're not talking about personal speech, and you're not talking about religious displays on courthouse lawns. Again, what are you talking about?
"You call me a liar for saying what I said, then you admit you said it. Wow."
What did I ever say about a public park? That's what you claimed.
"So, in reality, none of what I said is a lie and you actually do as I just said you do."
I didn't admit anything. And notice that you didn't address two out of three of the rebuttals. That's a 66.66% failure rate at best on your part, so you don't get to claim "none" of what you said is a lie.
"And notice that you didn't address two out of three of the rebuttals." ... Your defense is that you admit lying only 33.3% of the time? Not much of a defense.
DeleteNo, moron, because I addressed what you said and also used the phrase "at best" regarding your failure. So I'm not admitting any such thing, for those who are capable of reading.
DeleteOn the other hand, it's truly a weak defense to ignore my questions in order to misrepresent one phrase out of context. But I expect nothing better, considering your pathetic track record.
"So I'm not admitting any such thing, for those who are capable of reading." ... Ok, gotcha. Your clarification is that you will lie as much as needed, you just won't ever admit it? That's more like the brabantio I've been posting with. Good for you, stick to your morals.
Delete"On the other hand, it's truly a weak defense to ignore my questions in order to misrepresent one phrase out of context." ... I agree. You shouldn't do that, if you expect people to respect your comments. Please try to correct that habit of yours, in the future, OK?
"Your clarification is that you will lie as much as needed, you just won't ever admit it?"
DeleteNo, my clarification is that I didn't admit what you claimed I did. You haven't ever demonstrated a lie on my part, so there's nothing to admit lying to in the first place.
"You shouldn't do that, if you expect people to respect your comments."
No problem, considering you've never demonstrated me taking anything out of context, either.
This is really too easy, since you have no ammunition to use whatsoever.
"You haven't ever demonstrated a lie on my part, so there's nothing to admit lying to in the first place." ... Well, we always have this one:
Deletehttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/02/not-as-thunk-as-you-drink-i-am.html?showComment=1360854742235#c7999370884232459268
Where this is said: "Because it isn't a person. It's potential life."
I believe that is YOU saying it isn't human yet.
There. That is me proving what you said and now deny saying (lying). I'll get that last one proven soon, too.
Here's one where you directly saying a human fetus is NOT human until it is born: "No, because a fetus is potential life, not a "human being".".
DeleteYou can find that statement here: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2013/01/great.html?showComment=1360511698919#c8176848410099572829
That IS you saying that, isn't it?
"Where this is said: "Because it isn't a person. It's potential life.""
DeleteNo, because there's a difference between potential human life and a "human being" or a "person". A person or being is an entity. A fetus is human, but it is not an entity.
Let's also bear in mind that you said this (emphasis mine):"You've also made claims that a human baby is not human until it is born and used that to support abortion". Now, that would suggest that I support abortion up until birth. Otherwise, your claim makes no sense, because "until it is born" would have nothing to do with a first- or second-trimester limitation. Can you find something to even remotely suggest that I don't favor such a cutoff point?
Good luck.
"I'll get that last one proven soon, too."
Given your track record, I severely doubt it. But by all means, knock yourself out.
"Now, that would suggest that I support abortion up until birth." ... That's exactly what you've claimed to do. You said you support abortion until the 3rd trimester. Which (as anyone knows) is the trimester where the human baby is viable. So, you support murdering an innocent human life simply because YOU don't think it is going to be a human being until it is actually born. Until then, it could have been a dog or cat.
DeleteHowever, all that is neither here nor there. The point is that I caught you in a lie and proved it and you are inadequately and unwisely defending your lie. Good morals you got working for ya, there. In fact, I've shown 3 times you lied.
"... That's exactly what you've claimed to do. You said you support abortion until the 3rd trimester. Which (as anyone knows) is the trimester where the human baby is viable."
DeleteThat's not "up until birth".
"So, you support murdering an innocent human life simply because YOU don't think it is going to be a human being until it is actually born. Until then, it could have been a dog or cat."
I just said "human" doesn't mean "person". A fetus is not an entity.
"The point is that I caught you in a lie and proved it and you are inadequately and unwisely defending your lie."
You proved nothing except your inability to understand distinctions. Good job at that, though.
Yeah, I caught you in a lie and the best you can do is word games. I just said you support murdering human life and you said it is not an entity. I'm not talking about entities. I'm talking about human beings and you support murdering them using your atheistic moral barometer that adjusts as your needs change from day to day.
DeleteBut, all that doesn't matter, because I caught you in 3 lies and all you can do is play word games to excuse your behavior.
"Yeah, I caught you in a lie and the best you can do is word games."
DeleteNo, you're playing word games by claiming "up until birth" means the end of the second trimester.
"I'm not talking about entities."
Then it's not "murder".
"I'm talking about human beings and you support murdering them using your atheistic moral barometer that adjusts as your needs change from day to day."
A human being would be an entity. A potential human is not. And, as always, you have no evidence for me changing my position on anything, much less "day to day". You are stuck on stupid, spouting phrases you should know by now will just be thrown back at you.
"But, all that doesn't matter, because I caught you in 3 lies and all you can do is play word games to excuse your behavior."
The last I saw, you said: "I'll get that last one proven soon, too." Did you do that? You haven't proven the other two (to make it perfectly clear, since if everything isn't spelled out to you in detail you'll pretend I said something to the contrary), but you admitted the third was unproven and you haven't said a word about it since then.
"No, you're playing word games by claiming "up until birth" means the end of the second trimester." ... No I'm not.
Delete"Then it's not "murder"." ... If it fits within the parameters of 'murder', then, yes it is.
"A human being would be an entity." ... Exactly. And that is why you ignored the second option for option 1. (in the dictionary, which you so frequently refer to). Hey, I fully understand your moralistic view that murder is OK, I just don't like the fact you deny it. That is quite troublesome with your personality. But, I've already made too many comments on that situation. :) So I'll stop at that one.
"The last I saw, .... " .... Is it THAT hard to keep track of your lies that you have to actually keep track of them? Come-on now, you're SUPPOSED to be an adult, here. But. I guess when I'm at a left-lean web-site I should get what is expected. Thanks for being such a good poster boy for how democrats think and act. I'll keep that in mind during each and every election that democrats take to our nation.
Any time you want to add in, Eddie, I'm more than willing to take you on too. Obviously, Brabantiio can't sustain a semi-decent argument by himself. So, somebody has to help him.