Prop 8 Overturned :: Free Realms

Sage

5,684 posts

Almalieque wrote:

the current law is EQUAL

That's what the white man used to say.

#578 gbaji, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 6:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You aren't? You made an argument that prop8 was wrong because it's wrong to deny people the right to enter into the social institution of marriage. But prop8 doesn't deny that right. It's only effect is to limit the government funded benefits of marriage to couples consisting of a man and a woman. Period.

#579 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 6:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well then tell me, what's the difference between a law being equal versus a law being fair?

#580 Aug 11 2010 at 7:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Well then tell me, what's the difference between a law being equal versus a law being fair?

Hint: it's Semantics 101: Know the definition of words before you make arguments...

Normally by the time someone has to work this hard to defend themselves, they just bow out of a thread.

You, sir, continue to be amazing. Gbaji himself should take note.

#581 Aug 11 2010 at 7:23 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

Whole lotta amazement in this thread.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#582 Aug 11 2010 at 7:48 PM Rating: Good

Sage

5,684 posts

Jophiel wrote:

Whole lotta amazement in this thread.

needs more fab.

Demea's avatar isn't enough anymore.

#583 Aug 11 2010 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

You aren't? You made an argument that prop8 was wrong because it's wrong to deny people the right to enter into the social institution of marriage. But prop8 doesn't deny that right. It's only effect is to limit the government funded benefits of marriage to couples consisting of a man and a woman. Period.

It is stupid to go around about this again. Denying two adults, of sound mind and unencumbered, the right to marry because you don't like who they want to marry is not equality. I don't care that a gay man can marry a woman; refusing him the right to marry someone he loves and wants to marry is denying him the right to marry. Now go jerk off about how marriage isn't a right, you pillock.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#584 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 8:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I wasn't the one making arguments. I'm simply countering bad arguments....

#585 Aug 11 2010 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good

Xsarus

10,601 posts

sure you are alma, sure you are.

____________________________

01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ

#586 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 8:50 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) good, as long as we see eye to eye...

#587 Aug 11 2010 at 8:51 PM Rating: Good

Sage

5,684 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Bard wrote:

Normally by the time someone has to work this hard to defend themselves, they just bow out of a thread.

You, sir, continue to be amazing. Gbaji himself should take note.

I wasn't the one making arguments. I'm simply countering bad arguments....

Try to actually quote the right person next time you stupid ****.

#588 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 9:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yea, with me and you arguing this whole time and CBD make one comment.... there's no way I could have made that mistake... But I don't expect you to understand, you've already displayed your level of comprehension...

#589 Aug 11 2010 at 9:19 PM Rating: Good

Sage

5,684 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Bard wrote:

Try to actually quote the right person next time you stupid @#%^.

Yea, with me and you arguing this whole time and CBD make one comment.... there's no way I could have made that mistake... But I don't expect you to understand, you've already displayed your level of comprehension...

Besides weren't you supposed to expound how I was thinking it wrong or were you just typing useless posts as usual.. Oh, wait let me guess.... Since I wont understand, you wont waste your time explaining it to me, amirite? lol, you're such a waste of resources...

the "reply to thread" button along with the "quote original" feature takes all the guesswork out of who said what.

#590 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 9:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lol, never even noticed that... now if only your arguments were that valuable

#591 Aug 11 2010 at 9:23 PM Rating: Good

Sage

5,684 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Lady Bardalicious wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

Bard wrote:

Try to actually quote the right person next time you stupid @#%^.

Yea, with me and you arguing this whole time and CBD make one comment.... there's no way I could have made that mistake... But I don't expect you to understand, you've already displayed your level of comprehension...

Besides weren't you supposed to expound how I was thinking it wrong or were you just typing useless posts as usual.. Oh, wait let me guess.... Since I wont understand, you wont waste your time explaining it to me, amirite? lol, you're such a waste of resources...

the "reply to thread" button along with the "quote original" feature takes all the guesswork out of who said what.

lol, never even noticed that... now if only your arguments were that valuable

If each dot in your ellipses were a shiny quarter I could pay for med school.

#592 Aug 11 2010 at 9:26 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592341547422

Scholar

4,512 posts

Almalieque wrote:

CBD wrote:

Normally by the time someone has to work this hard to defend themselves, they just bow out of a thread.

You, sir, continue to be amazing. Gbaji himself should take note.

I wasn't the one making arguments. I'm simply countering bad arguments....

Edited, Aug 12th 2010 5:09am by Almalieque

And you're doing a simply terrific job of defending your counter arguments. Good job, lad!

#593 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 9:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) expound please

#594 gbaji, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 9:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The only thing the government is doing is not paying the man for marrying another man. That's not a denial of rights. You said yourself that marriage existed prior to the government providing benefits to people who married. Thus, those benefits are not a requirement to "be married".

#595 Aug 11 2010 at 9:47 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

I'll ask the same question in reverse: "How does it hurt gay couples marriages if heterosexual married couples get benefits from the government?"

It doesn't. It hurts gay couples to be denied those benefits. They're not being hurt because someone else is getting them.

That was an exceptionally stupid question.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#596 Aug 11 2010 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591806028313

Scholar

847 posts

Quote:

Pretty much we're going to end up at a point where marriage licenses (assuming that they'll still be called marriage licenses) will go to any multiperson parties where all parties interested are willing and able to agree. And they'll get all the benefits that come with such unions. And then maybe the government will get out of regulating marriages. Sorta like in the early days of our republic when marriage was strictly a church affair.

Next up for those who favored Prop. 8: The state will no longer issue "Marriage licenses". All such unions between two people (bigamy and polygamy are next) will be called domestic partnerships.

Take your slippery slope and asinine thoughts somewhere else.

Call it asinine if you must, but it's not a slippery slope. Considering that the same reasoning to make illegal same sex marriages apply to other non-traditional marriages as well. As long as all parties are willing and able to give consent, then there's no reason why there shouldn't be a marriage.

In fact...Something similar happened in Europe when same sex marriages were legally recognized.

Believe it or not, it is not a slippery slope fallacy to recognize that two things have something in common, and when that something is changed to change one thing, it also affects the other.

#597 Aug 11 2010 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

Keylin wrote:

In fact...Something similar happened in Europe when same sex marriages were legally recognized.

Good for them.

#598 gbaji, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 10:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It was an exceptionally smart question. It got you to take a ridiculous and indefensible position. I've said many times that liberals constantly try to treat the lack of a positive as though it's a negative, and here you go providing yet another perfect example of that particular bit of nonsense. But then, the entire concept of "positive rights" is based on the same absurd idea. You guys just constantly try to deny that's what you're doing though, so it's nice to occasionally catch you proving my point.

#599 Aug 11 2010 at 10:13 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636418093

Sage

30,646 posts

gbaji wrote:

I don't agree that failing to give someone something hurts them, much less infringes their rights.

Be sure to explain that to the next gay man or woman who isn't allowed to visit their dying partner in the hospital. I'm sure they'll be glad to know that denying them the right to visit their in-name-only spouse isn't hurting them.

#600 Aug 11 2010 at 10:15 PM Rating: Excellent

Jophiel

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

It hurts me to be denied food stamps. But I would never argue that it's a violation of my rights.

Good thing too since I'd ask where your right to get food stamps derives from. I can answer where the right to marry derives from.

Quote:

By that logic, I'm being hurt anytime the government doesn't provide me with something free.

Not at all.

Quote:

I'm sorry, but that makes no freaking sense at all.

That's because you're using a lame strawman argument.

Quote:

It was an exceptionally smart question.

Not remotely.

Quote:

It got you to take a ridiculous and indefensible position.

You mean one that lets you create strawman arguments? Well, I guess it worked for that although I don't think you've convinced anyone but yourself that it was a debating success.

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.