I Now Pronounce You Party A And Party B. (Trees And Things)

skeptic: Re: logic

Sat, 27 Sep 2008 08:17:22 EST

troll

zyxwvutsr: Re: logic

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:31:00 EST

I have offered you many logical arguments...

The only "argument" you offered about why homosexual marriages should be considered normal was "because I say so."

After all that argument, your position on the n

skeptic: Re: logic

Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:28:54 EST
I have offered you many logical arguments, and you illogically conclude that because I have also made some assertions, that I have no logical arguments, just assertions. You are selectively blind.
After all that argument, your position on the norm

zyxwvutsr: Re: logic

Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:32:28 EST

...causes you to conclude incorrectly that my own arguments are not logical
What you have written is not only not a logical argument, but it isn't an argument at all. Stating that, "same-sex marriage should be considered as n

skeptic: logic

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:20:15 EST
So far you haven't shown any capacity for logical reasoning, which causes you to conclude incorrectly that my own arguments are not logical (this also leads to your previous claim that I don't even know what the word "logic" means). In your latest di

zyxwvutsr: Re: more futility

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:31:32 EST

The reason why I mentioned that there are millions of homosexuals is that you tried to categorized [sic] heterosexuality as typical, and homosexuality as atypical
I did? Seems to me that all I did was challenge your as

ms sue: Re: more futility

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:47:50 EST
and although I have said repeatedly that I don't even want to argue with you anymore, you insist on posting arguments which, if I ignore them, will give the wrong impression to other readers.
Understandable concern, but it is totally incor

skeptic: Re: more futility

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:21:29 EST
The reason why I mentioned that there are millions of homosexuals is that you tried to categorized heterosexuality as typical, and homosexuality as atypical. The point is that there are enough homosexuals that this is not such an atypical form of sex

Lou: Re: another futile comment

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:07:25 EST
Hey, that mandatory genetic transfer doesn't happen by itself, thou knows.

zyxwvutsr: Re: another futile comment

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:56:05 EST
Gee, Lou, do you think that rape is unnatural? (What does that even mean, anyway?)

zyxwvutsr: Re: more futility

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:55:42 EST

Everybody has the same rights, regardless of the groups to which they belong
If you believe that then why do you feel compelled to introduce non sequiturs such as "[t]here are millions of homosexuals in the US"? Why should th

skeptic: more futility

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:42:06 EST
I really shouldn't even be replying to you, but you make SUCH ridiculous statements that it is difficult to avoid the temptation of replying. The whole point of respecting the rights of minorities is precisely to AVOID treating people differently dep

Lou: Re: another futile comment

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:30:43 EST
He also thinks rape is natural. Go figure.

Lou: Re: "fuck off"? How rude!

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:29:56 EST
you liberals

zyxwvutsr: Re: "fuck off"? How rude!

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:02:53 EST

If it is not obvious to you that sex between consenting adults is more morally acceptable than sex that adults force upon unwilling children...
It is obvious, and does not need to be said. But pedophiles are not necessarily r

skeptic: another futile comment

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 09:42:43 EST
While it would be tremendously tedious to work through your latest load of bullshit to reply to everything you have said, I will reply to your effort to place homosexuality on the same moral footing as pedophilia and other sexual behavior which is coercive

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 17:24:45 EST

The term "genius" refers to an extreme condition, it doesn't just mean an intelligent person. Look it up
I don't need to look it up; I already know it refers to IQs somewhere in the top percentile of the distribution an

DEMachina: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Sun, 21 Sep 2008 11:19:47 EST
My question was more why it matters to them that they're called "Party A" and "Party B" on the form.
I agree this was a dumb reason to deny them a license. I think the clerk should have just ignored what they wrote on there and done whatever the l

gerrymander: Re: Maritochromology

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 14:13:13 EST
Heh. But to answer the question: at all.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Maritochromology

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:11:59 EST

Are you aware of any religions which don't marry men and women?

You mean explicitly, or at all?

gerrymander: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:42:47 EST
Sure, but why does this matter?
It matters because the government has refused to recognize a marriage for a stupid administrative reason.
For one, that's only the standard wording because the concept of same-sex marriage is new to Christian

skeptic: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:06:16 EST
I see that as usual, you want to argue about everything, unnecessarily. However, I will indulge you.
The term "genius" refers to an extreme condition, it doesn't just mean an intelligent person. Look it up.
Yes, abnormal intelligen

skeptic: enforcing gender roles

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:08:31 EST
You are absolutely wrong. The most powerful and indeed, the only meaningful reason for a person to conform to a heterosexual role would be that the person in question actually is heterosexual. Whereas the concept that gender roles are tradition

DEMachina: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:16:41 EST
The standard Christian marriage service pronounces a couple "man and wife," not "parties A and B."
Sure, but why does this matter? For one, that's only the standard wording because the concept of same-sex marriage is new to Christianity. &n

gerrymander: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:44:12 EST
First, I think those two examples are distinguishable, because refusing to swear an oath is a tenant of some religions; I'm not aware of any religion that says you cannot be referred to as a "party."
The standard Christian marriage service pronou

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:17:10 EST

I doubt that there are millions of geniuses in the US...
Your doubt doesn't change the IQ distribution.

But we would not consider intelligence to be an abnormal condition
Abnormal intelligenc

Steve Urkel: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:16:24 EST
Of course denaturalizing traditional "gender roles" undermines them, that traditional "gender roles" are natural is the most powerful argument for them.
You can disagree with a statement, but you can't pretend it means whatever you want. You should also

skeptic: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:31:27 EST
There is a difference between "denaturalizing" existing gender roles, and undermining them. The concept that heterosexuality is "natural" and homosexuality is therefore "unnatural" is not a necessary underpinning of the heterosexual world. Inst

DEMachina: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:20:29 EST
My point was that Loving was not decided based on First Amendment grounds. So again, the right to marry has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
First, I think those two examples are distinguishable, because refusing to swear an oath is

Steve Urkel: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:16:48 EST
"Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with undermining the distinctions made by normal marriage"
Of course it does. As lesbo law professor Nan Hunter has expla

skeptic: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:59:16 EST
I doubt that there are millions of geniuses in the US, although there are millions of intelligent people. In any event, geniuses have above-normal intelligence, not normal intelligence. But we would not consider intelligence to be an abnormal c

strangeluck: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:49:56 EST
The point skeptic was trying to make wasn't that we should literally consider same-sex marriage normal in a demographic sense, but that we should accept it as a societal norm. It's like interracial marriage. While they only makeup a small percentage of mar

Lou: 3% Solution

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:30:33 EST
That's still more than Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Jews, and the Capitalist Class.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:21:51 EST

Lou's reply is valid...
Oh, come on, it it not. Either Lou grossly overestimated the number of homosexuals or grossly underestimated the number of left-handed people.

There are millions of homosexuals in the

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:18:04 EST
Don't be ridiculous. 17% of Americans have blue eyes (or something close to blue, I suppose), 13% are black, and 12% are left-handed. Gays are, like, 3%.

skeptic: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:09:18 EST
Lou's reply is valid, but I would add that although homosexuality is much more rare than heterosexuality, it isn't actually rare. There are millions of homosexuals in the US and their desire to marry is comparable to that of heterosexuals.

Lou: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:46:41 EST
Well, looking at the demographics of the US I guess being black, or left handed, or blue-eyed counts as being abnormal.

zyxwvutsr: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:39:22 EST

same-sex marriage should be considered as normal as opposite-sex marriage
Why should something rare be considered normal?

skeptic: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:21:30 EST
Your lack of understanding is truly profound. Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with undermining the distinctions made by normal marriage (and incidentally, same-sex marriage should be considered as normal as opposite-sex marriage, even though the

zyxwvutsr: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:59:04 EST
Hey! He has a wide stance!

Lou: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:51:03 EST
water closeted homosexualist.
Do you mean Larry Craig?

harzerkatze: Re: How I would have done the poll

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:40:05 EST
And especially for California and Florida:
Sugar daddy / Golddigger.

wetkarma: screw em

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:19:12 EST
If you don't like it when society imposes rules on you, don't go to society asking for approval of your relationship.

gerrymander: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:38:40 EST
Since Loving was one of the precedents cited to justify allowing gay marriage in California, maybe that's not the best counterexample in this case.
They just have to call themselves Party A and Party B on a form that no one will ever look at a

MayorBob: Re: Which is odd.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:15:16 EST
The lesbian couple up the street live in Delaware, of course. My wife's cousin lives in New Jersey. And there were any number of times on plastic that gays would use the terminology.

profwhat: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:02:13 EST
I don't think California could constitutionally retroactively invalidate that many marriages, even if it wanted to.

profwhat: Re: Which is odd.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:00:59 EST
If I had a dime for every time a gay couple referred to one party as "boyfriend" or "husband" and the other party as "girlfriend" or "wife" I'd probably have a tidy collection of dimes.
I have never heard of this. Really? Is this a re

profwhat: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:56:27 EST
No. But your argument would only make sense if there were also gay couples in California upset by the lack of "groom/groom" or "bride/bride" forms. The point is that this is just a government form; it doesn't represent what you actually get cal

MayorBob: Re: How I would have done the poll

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:36:38 EST
Mac Daddy/Beeyotch

MayorBob: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:35:53 EST
Does having that on your drivers license make you an organ receiver rather than an organ donor?

thefadd: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:19:12 EST
I thought his preferred term was homosexualist. Or maybe that's just my favorite among his terms, as in water closeted homosexualist.

thefadd: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:17:51 EST
Man, your driver's license, my tax form, we gotta stem the tide!

port1080: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:47:41 EST
So that's why it now says "In the ass" after "Sex:" on my driver's license...

Lou: Re: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:33:35 EST
But what you may not know is that homos (shumway's fave term) own the legislature, the printing presses, the computer graphics programs, the copy machines, Kinkos, the air and Hollywood. There's no way to get non-homo phrases on a document any more.

thefadd: How I would have done the poll

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:27:10 EST
There are plenty of reasonable alternatives that are far more descriptive than Party A and Party B. At least one of them would almost certainly fulfill the adherence to the nomenclature of a historically misogynist domination system this couple desires whi

DEMachina: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 18:26:41 EST
Sure it does. It means that the state has disenfranchised their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and association, at a minimum.
What? First of all, marriage has nothing to do with freedom of association or freedom of religion (

port1080: Foolishness on both sides

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:53:15 EST
There is no reason that a compromise couldn't be reached here very easily, particularly in this day of modern printing technology, where it's easy as pie for different marriage certificates to be printed. There are only so many potential combos here,

MayorBob: Which is odd.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:20:51 EST
This business of gender being linked to words. If I had a dime for every time a gay couple referred to one party as "boyfriend" or "husband" and the other party as "girlfriend" or "wife" I'd probably have a tidy collection of dimes. It was quit

gerrymander: Re: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:10:05 EST
One of the odd things about this is that the form in question has no real religious significance.
Sure it does. It means that the state has disenfranchised their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and association, at a minimum. It's on

MayorBob: Fill Out The Damned Form And Get Married.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:51:06 EST
One of the odd things about this is that the form in question has no real religious significance. Rachel and Gideon did tie the knot at her father's church, so I'm assuming there was no requirement to refer to each other as "bride and groom" during t

Steve Urkel: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:49:05 EST
"A change in the wording on paperwork?"
I'm curious, is that also your reply when homosexuals argue "Civil union is not equality. The only reason to use a word other than `mar

gerrymander: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:45:14 EST
What is the impact on heterosexuals, exactly? A change in the wording on paperwork? Anything more?
Actually, I'd be very interested to see how the law regarding the change in nomenclature is written. Unless they were careful enough to

Lou: Re: that 3rd poll choice

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:45:08 EST
I thought you supported tradition marriage?

Steve Urkel: Freud=quack. Typo = canard.

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:36:16 EST
I don't really find anything disturbingly attractive. I do find some things attractively disturbing.
I suppose I could start previewing before posting...

gerrymander: that 3rd poll choice

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:32:22 EST
I imagine that a "fill in the blank" marriage certificate option would last a very short time -- only slightly longer than it took to have the words "master" and "slave" be used the couple's choice of nomenclature.

profwhat: Re: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:31:12 EST
What is the impact on heterosexuals, exactly? A change in the wording on paperwork? Anything more?
I would hate to see how this happily married couple will react when it comes time to fill out their federal tax forms, on which they will be r

MayorBob: Double Clutch = Freudian Slip

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:24:25 EST
"... of of homo-marriage."
Was the double clutch caused by your utter revulsion at the idea or because you find it disturbingly attractive?

Steve Urkel: Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly

Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:19:21 EST
""Those who support (same-sex marriage) say it has no impact on heterosexuals. This debunks that argument."
Exactly. "Inclusiveness" is a pretense, undermining the distinctions made by normal marriage is one of the desired consequence