Obama makes history

Originally posted by SwissGambit
*slippery slope tracker*

1) cars
2) sheep
3) shoes
4) tractors

Sheep.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
*slippery slope tracker*

1) cars
2) sheep
3) shoes
4) tractors

Sheep; seriously, sheep are in the same list as shoes n cars, n tractors?

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well done you are now claiming that homosexuality is fetish, are you trying for a birthday card from whodey? As I posted earlier I would support any lifestyle choice you care to mention providing it did not involve the curtailing of somebody else's choice.

The subject of this discussion is whether legalising same sex marriage is wrong on the grounds tha ...[text shortened]... im that homosexulity is just another in an infinite list lifestyle choices is simply incorrect.

Your posts are ridiculous attempts to put words in my mouth or a simple inability to understand an argument. You tell me which.

I do not regard homosexuality as having some specially protected status. Why you do is a puzzle; apparently you think that decisions that are influenced by "innate" factors are more worthy of protection than those that are supposedly not influenced by "innate" characteristics. First, that claim is very vulnerable on empirical grounds; if it can be shown that homosexuality is not unduly influenced by genetics, then the claim falls. Second, I really don't know of ANY behavior of humans not influenced by "innate" characteristics - unless you believe in the "ghost in the machine" of Descartes behavior could hardly be influenced by anything else. So your claim really doesn't make any logical sense.

I already said I don't care how homosexuality is characterized, so your silly attempt to say that I said it was a "fetish" is absurd. I doubt seriously whodey is going to endorse my argument that homosexuals shouldn't be invidiously discriminated against, but if it makes you feel better to claim such nonsense, go ahead.

The paragraph about "meddling" is a hoot. You really, really need to re-read my posts as you clearly don't understand them. I don't regard legalizing same sex marriages as the State "meddling" in anything; I regard it as ending an invidious discrimination against homosexuals. It's hard to see how you have so misinterpreted my position.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your posts are ridiculous attempts to put words in my mouth or a simple inability to understand an argument. You tell me which.

I do not regard homosexuality as having some specially protected status. Why you do is a puzzle; apparently you think that decisions that are influenced by "innate" factors are more worthy of protection than those ...[text shortened]... t homosexuals. It's hard to see how you have so misinterpreted my position.

you do not understand the central premise of the thread and your constant fall back position of pouring scorn and vitriol over my steady adherence to the thread belies your attempts to appear smarter than the average poster.

The post is concerned with question of whether or not same sex couples should be able to undergo the same legal registration of their commitment as straight couples. If you have knowledge of minority groups in the same position then introduce them into the debate, otherwise it is a very simple question; you either agree with Obamas stance on the issue or you do not. I do for the reasons I have given in earlier posts.

If you are with whodey on this, it is nothing to be ashamed of, but fess up and avoid the need for vague misdirected, and as usual temper tantrum posts.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
you do not understand the central premise of the thread and your constant fall back position of pouring scorn and vitriol over my steady adherence to the thread belies your attempts to appear smarter than the average poster.

The post is concerned with question of whether or not same sex couples should be able to undergo the same legal registration of th ...[text shortened]... med of, but fess up and avoid the need for vague misdirected, and as usual temper tantrum posts.

LMAO! You insist on deliberately misstating my position and then whine about the way I respond to your posts?

AFAIK, all my posts have been on point. Further, I have made my position quite clear. Why you are now insisting I haven't is rather baffling.

While you may have reached the correct conclusion on this issue, you have reached it using faulty logic and analysis. I've rather patiently pointed out to you where you have erred but for whatever reason you seem to want to ignore the substantive content of my posts in order to engage in the rather absurd ad hominem strategy of saying my position is the same as whodey's. You must be the only person on this board who believes such a thing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! You insist on deliberately misstating my position and then whine about the way I respond to your posts?

AFAIK, all my posts have been on point. Further, I have made my position quite clear. Why you are now insisting I haven't is rather baffling.

While you may have reached the correct conclusion on this issue, you have re ...[text shortened]... is the same as whodey's. You must be the only person on this board who believes such a thing.

Well we are both baffled then because you have accused me of makiing a special case for homosexuals in regard to this thread when clearly this thread demands that we make the case for same sex couples if we believe that there is one.

The fact that I believe that homosexuality is predetermined on a genetic level does not mean that other sexual orientations may not be genetically determined, or even if they are not it does not follow that they do not have a right to be free of discrimination.

Apart from pokygamy I cannot think of another group who would realistically fall into this particular category in regard to marriage and the discriminatory way it is reserved for a favoured group to the exclusion of another.

As for my reference to whodey it was not intended as an ad homenim perhaps you should apologise to him for your ad homenim.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Well we are both baffled then because you have accused me of makiing a special case for homosexuals in regard to this thread when clearly this thread demands that we make the case for same sex couples if we believe that there is one.

The fact that I believe that homosexuality is predetermined on a genetic level does not mean that other sexual orientatio ...[text shortened]... ey it was not intended as an ad homenim perhaps you should apologise to him for your ad homenim.

The thread and the issue require no such thing. The issue should be controlled by universally applicable principles of human rights and the Natural Law. Invidious, irrational discrimination regarding who is allowed to marry is no more acceptable as regards homosexuals as it would be in the hypothetical case I gave of the banning of very good chess players from marrying. It is quite simply of no import as to whether there is some underlying genetic or "innate" characteristics which influence the behavior sought to be punished by the invidious discrimination. And for the reasons I already gave, reliance on a genetic or "innate" basis for homosexual orientation is fraught with logical peril.

I consider a suggestion that I share with whodey the same opinion on this issue as an insult.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Sheep; seriously, sheep are in the same list as shoes n cars, n tractors?

I know, right?!

Originally posted by shavixmir
I heard this on comedy central, I don't know the comedian:

"I don't understand what the problem is if a State legalizes same-sex marriage. I mean, it's not like that's gonna change God's position. Rest easy my religious friends, God will still send them all to hell. So stop worrying."

Voila.
Problem solved.

Another good joke I saw on a banner carried by a campaigner for gay marriage:

"If Liza Minnelli can marry two gay men, why can't I marry one?"