Gay Marriage

Quote:

You're welcome to use real definitions or make up any you wish. I suspect it will be entertaining either way.

So, WHY would I want to explain something that you've already determined will be entertaining either way?

Do you see what I mean by civil?

Perhaps not.

One more time; I believe government does NOT have the power to legislate whether a man or women are allowed to marry OR whether a man and a man can get married.

With that said, I also am totally against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This is what I meant by government intrusion into not only OUR rights, but states' rights, which I thought was a Republican concern. Fortunately, I haven't noticed the Republican majority pushing this issue. They're too busy handling damage control on Bush's SS fake crisis.

Are you sure you read through this entire thread before chiming in?

0 Replies

You're not paying attention.

0 Replies

Maybe you're not catching on. Or you haven't read the other comments on this thread.

But why don't you just lay out your case from beginning to end, eh?

0 Replies

Yes, I'm sure you're correct. I am the one who is not catching on.

My entire "case" can be found in my initial post. Your statement does not say what you intended it to. That's all. In your later posts you have proven my assumption correct. But it doesn't matter. I simply hinted that a simple correction needed to be made, and it has.

0 Replies

Quote:

Do you feel it's perfectly acceptable for a forty year old man to marry a four year old girl... or boy?

Yep. There's your whole case.

Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

That would be my second post. But keep trying, you're almost there. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Quote:

What about children?

Quote:

Do you feel it's perfectly acceptable for a forty year old man to marry a four year old girl... or boy?

Both statements infer adults marrying children, do they not?

Now that you've offered us ad nauseum remarks regarding misconstruities, how about stating YOUR case?

I'm assuming that you have one other than continuously trying to "correct" me... :wink:

0 Replies

I'm not sure what you mean by "us;" you're the only one who requires extensive explanation. Everyone else will understand my point from the first post. If I had been talking to anyone else it would not have been such a struggle.

I don't accept any blame for your incompetence, I merely chose to take responsibility for it, which has proven to be a waste of time.

My position is that the Government needs to have some control over marriages, which you have already agreed with.

0 Replies

Hi all:

Lets put things this way and see if you agree - I am not trying to add fuel to the fire or anything but here:

"I get the point btwn you two though. Jurisdiction, according to my understanding is the state or place which a particular government/ruler/political sovereign - call it what you want - has power over and they have the power therefore to rule and legislate.

Now Dookie said:

"The issue was "jurisdiction," I guess. But since the gay marriages that took place in our great city of SF were ALL between consenting ADULTS, how is it possible for you to interpret that I also meant children? "

and that was correct also. Reading what went on, it seems that Dookie, went on the assumption that so long as there were consenting adults in this marraige - AND THEN ONLY will the government have NO right to govern who marries who when and how.

summary? The gov has no power govern UNLESS there are full age consenting sound minded adults AND with the exception of unacceptable marraiges eg: children or incestuous marraiges.

Therefore - both SCoates and Dookie were correct. In a way, you both supplemented each other, without knowing it.

How is that?

0 Replies

So, then, do you agree that we should have a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and a women?

Really, SCoates, if you insist on the insults, there are ramifications. I would hope most of us are trying to keep things civil here on able2know.com

Your arrogance towards me is a clear sign of your contempt regarding the process.

And now, in a civil way, I ask YOU how much control government should have over marriage? The federal government vs. state governments?

And nice response, pragmatic. Let's see if SCoates can answer without further insults.

0 Replies

Dookie - thanks for the compliment. SCoates has already seen my comments on another post at another topic and SCoates had managed to respond to it very nicely and politely - you can be rest assured of that.

0 Replies

Quote:

and that was correct also. Reading what went on, it seems that Dookie, went on the assumption that so long as there were consenting adults in this marraige - AND THEN ONLY will the government have NO right to govern who marries who when and how.

And waddya know? Pragmatic got it perfectly. My guess is Pragmatic was paying attention to the continuity of this thread. Afterall, this thread started out with a distinct religious tone vs. government intrusion, which is a much different take from SCoates attempt to stear this into a different direction.

I just don't understand the angry, adversarial response from the likes of SCoates. It belies the process of this forum in which the moderators wish us to engage in.

In case SCoates forgot:

Quote:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2594

Mannerly conduct

As per the membership agreement, it is a given that flaming, rude comments, and personal attacks are not acceptable here. Intellectually vacuous and snide slanders such as 'DemoRats' or 'REPUGlicans' (or local variants if you live elsewhere than the US) are completely unwelcome. But, actually, we ask more of you than those obvious and fundamental rules.

Consider that you are joining a community marked by good will and a shared committment to learn and to help others learn. Thus it is expected that all discussion participants will:

- read others' posts with care and deliberation
- strive to understand the position of those who disagree with you
- value your own experience and knowledge, and allow the same for others
- write your own posts with care and deliberation
- don't hog...keep your posts to a size and frequency which allows others an equal place in the discussion
- respect the intention of the person who originally posted and keep discussion relevant to the topic or question if that is his/her expressed wish, or the wish of others engaged. Always feel free to begin a separate question yourself if a tangent seems particularly interesting or important.
- feel quite free to disagree, but engage in friendly disagreement
- remember that humor and a friendly manner can go far in encouraging your readers to 'hear' your opinion
- and, make your posts helpful to the whole community by following the rules of good scholarship below

A noble cause, IMO...

0 Replies

You've been insulting me as much as I've been insulting you. The only difference is I'm not pretending to be inoffensive. Your attempts at diplomacy are intirely affected, which only makes then more offensive.

Here are my opinions, as copied from another thread:

Oh, I'm in the minority on the subject... well, at least the relative minority on this site. I am against it for religious reasons, which I intend to force upon no one. So it's usually best for me to not state my opinion.

I view homosexuality as something that is not the individuals fault, but they would be happier if they overcame. Of course, saying that can make people mad, and I don't want to make homosexuals mad.

0 Replies

pragmatic wrote:

Dookie - thanks for the compliment. SCoates has already seen my comments on another post at another topic and SCoates had managed to respond to it very nicely and politely - you can be rest assured of that.

Well, in my case, I'll believe it when I see it. But thanx for chiming in with some reason.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Well, in my case, I'll believe it when I see it. But thanx for chiming in with some reason.

We all had our reasons, I can say so with certainty as a third party observer.

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

You've been insulting me as much as I've been insulting you. The only difference is I'm not pretending to be inoffensive. Your attempts at diplomacy are intirely affected, which only makes then more offensive.

Actually, you forget that people can change. As I was banned a little while back for hurling personal insults, I've decidedly changed my tactics and tone.

Quote:

Here are my opinions, as copied from another thread:

Oh, I'm in the minority on the subject... well, at least the relative minority on this site. I am against it for religious reasons, which I intend to force upon no one. So it's usually best for me to not state my opinion.

I view homosexuality as something that is not the individuals fault, but they would be happier if they overcame. Of course, saying that can make people mad, and I don't want to make homosexuals mad.

What is there to overcome?

0 Replies

Again, as I've stated at least once before, you assume I am attacking your belief, when I am only upset with your attitude, presumptions, rudeness, stubbornness, and so forth.

0 Replies

Pragmatic, as a third party, do you feel I am the only one being rude, or am I simply less subtle?

0 Replies

SCoates wrote:

Pragmatic, as a third party, do you feel I am the only one being rude, or am I simply less subtle?

As I see it, we all had different attitudes and different emotions towards this very difficult topic and thus responded differently - and I can assure you all that anyone (INCLUDING ME) was hurled into this topic face to face with another person would go into very high and unpredictable emotions. You don't belive me, check out my posts in the topic Hong Kong since 1997.

And anyway, we're all only human! Very Happy

0 Replies

And I thought we were moving on regarding this subject.

Quote:

Don't play dumb. You worded your point very poorly, and you're acting like I'm an idiot for noticing it.

Quote:

You're welcome to use real definitions or make up any you wish. I suspect it will be entertaining either way.

Quote:

I don't accept any blame for your incompetence, I merely chose to take responsibility for it, which has proven to be a waste of time.

That's just lovely, SCoates. Thanx for keeping it so civil on this thread.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know