40 years of bad bad road for the lunatic fringe.

nimh wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It's like I write a letter to someone saying "you lied," but misspell the word you, and the person insists that I am wrong because I misspelled you, as though that proves that he didn't lie.

Err, no. Its not like you misspelled a word. You're not being caught on a matter of spelling or syntax.

It's like, you made a straightforward claim - "there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage" - that is plain false - what, with four governments doing exactly that, and some of them having been doing so for a number of years.

<shrugs> Thats all. No misspelling - no tricks - just you making a claim that's provably wrong, and being called on it.

Acknowledge it and move on, and leave the undignified wiggling to more cowardly souls. You know: "OK, I made a mistake there, so let me rephrase my point.."

(I'll never get what is so hard about saying that, for the life of me)

What's so hard about it is that I did not make a mistake by assuming that "before the present time" was understood, and furthermore that it is standard operating procedure for many of the A2K liberals to hold their own in debates they cannot win by pouncing on some phrase in an opposing post, and insisting over and over again that their opponent didn't mean what he says he did, while fleeing from the substance of his argument. It's just one more entry from the liberal bag of dishonorable debate techniques. Whether I meant "before the present" originally, as I maintain I did, or whether I said it incorrectly, and am clarifying what I meant now is irrelevant to the debate. I am not a bit surprised you lot argue this way, since you cannot argue substance.

Now, cite for me any time and place in human history in which a government legally recognized gay marriage. I will not play with you any further. Any response whatever other than an example will be a forfeit by you, and I will indeed move on.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Not a very good 40-years for the looney left either.

Kennedy - Womanizer, got shot
Johnson - Just an idiot
Carter - Once a peanut farmer, always a peanut farmer
Clinton - Womanizer, lucky his wife didn't shoot him

Let's see, you've summarized 40 years of loony leftism to a couple of adulterous affairs, intelligence and peanut farming.

This is further proof of the lunatic fringe and religious wackjob movement who are holding America hostage.

0 Replies

"Johnson - Just an idiot' says Brandon, Lyndon (AKA Landlide Lyndon) was among the top political operatives of the 2oth century, skilled, knowledgeable and adept, who managed to get passed the civil rights act (I never voted for him) but to write him off as "just an idiot" displays profound ignorance of politicial reality. Brandon, you display supreme lack of knowledge of american politics with such profound stupidity, you make conservatives look like retards. Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer, reaches the depths of depravity and politcial party meaninglessness. You need to study actual history before making such pronoucements.

0 Replies

Speaking of idiots, Brandon's last post had me chuckling happily....it recalled perfectly the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the knight, by now sans arms and legs, keeps taunting his victorious opponent and yelling at him to "come here, you coward, and I'll bite yer bloody knee caps off."

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now, cite for me any time and place in human history in which a government legally recognized gay marriage.

That question has already been answered:

The Netherlands - from 2001 on
Belgium - from 2003 on
Massachusetts - from 2004 on
Spain - from 2005 on
Canada - from 2005 on (in individual provinces since 2003)

That's all recent history - history didn't end 10, 20 or 40 years ago.

Regarding ancient history, "In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same."

Of course, in ancient days there was no "government" as we currently know it. But there were examples where the rulers obviously granted their approval, eg: "In Ancient Egypt, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by many to be the first male couple in history. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal confidantes" in their joint tomb."

In other pre-modern societies state and government were wholly lacking, but gay marriage was openly acknowledged, respected and formally celebrated. Eg:

- "In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men."

- "In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies."

(All quotations from Wikipedia)

The thing is, we don't need an justification derived from ancient traditions. Countries and states in Europe and Northern-America are adopting gay marriage without apparent negative effect, and with years already having passed since the first of them did so, that is part of our history now too.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Speaking of idiots, Brandon's last post had me chuckling happily....it recalled perfectly the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the knight, by now sans arms and legs, keeps taunting his victorious opponent and yelling at him to "come here, you coward, and I'll bite yer bloody knee caps off."

Have at us, Brandon. What Ho!

http://aja.freehosting.net/images/HolyGrail020abc.jpg

0 Replies

Excuse me. I was the one who said "Johnson - just an idiot", and he was.

For his "great society" schemes, I pay something like 10% FICA these days. 20% if self employed.

If that isn't the definition of idiocy, I don't know what is.
Talk about a deterrent to being self sufficient.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

[Your basic problem in this discussion is to appear to beat me in an argument without ever participating in the argument. If you actually address the point of my post, you will lose, and you know it. You are using the time honored A2K liberal technique of finding some statement in your opponent's post which has nothing to do with the argument, but which can be made out to be technically incorrect, and then insisting over and over again that your oponent didn't mean what he says that he meant, while scrupulously avoiding discussing the actual argument.

I have no basic problem in this discussion.

You said something that was wrong...I noted that it was wrong...you tried to weasel out of acknowledging that you were wrong...and even insisted you were right despite the obvious fact that you were wrong...

...and now you are trying to make it seem that a game was being played.

Quote:

It is obvious that neither you, nor anyone else here can cite even one single instance in history in which a government recognized gay marriages. I will take your failure to give an example as a forfeit by you and the others, all of your attempts to distract, and obfuscate notwithstanding.

I never said I could...and I do not understand what it would mean to the discussion you want so desperately not to be side tracked. WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

nimh wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
It's like I write a letter to someone saying "you lied," but misspell the word you, and the person insists that I am wrong because I misspelled you, as though that proves that he didn't lie.

Err, no. Its not like you misspelled a word. You're not being caught on a matter of spelling or syntax.

It's like, you made a straightforward claim - "there has never been a place or time where the government legally recognized gay marriage" - that is plain false - what, with four governments doing exactly that, and some of them having been doing so for a number of years.

<shrugs> Thats all. No misspelling - no tricks - just you making a claim that's provably wrong, and being called on it.

Acknowledge it and move on, and leave the undignified wiggling to more cowardly souls. You know: "OK, I made a mistake there, so let me rephrase my point.."

(I'll never get what is so hard about saying that, for the life of me)

What's so hard about it is that I did not make a mistake by assuming that "before the present time" was understood, and furthermore that it is standard operating procedure for many of the A2K liberals to hold their own in debates they cannot win by pouncing on some phrase in an opposing post, and insisting over and over again that their opponent didn't mean what he says he did, while fleeing from the substance of his argument. It's just one more entry from the liberal bag of dishonorable debate techniques. Whether I meant "before the present" originally, as I maintain I did, or whether I said it incorrectly, and am clarifying what I meant now is irrelevant to the debate. I am not a bit surprised you lot argue this way, since you cannot argue substance.

Now, cite for me any time and place in human history in which a government legally recognized gay marriage. I will not play with you any further. Any response whatever other than an example will be a forfeit by you, and I will indeed move on.

What a jerk.

You got good advice to simply acknowledge that you were wrong...AND EVERYONE HERE BUT YOU REALIZES THAT YOUR WERE WRONG...

...and instead of taking it you continue to weasel...and to pretend that the others in this discussion are weaseling..

Wake the hell up.

0 Replies

40 years of bad bad road for the lunatic fringe.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know