Who didn't see this one coming?

[Weegle777 78]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Furthermore, simply because someone can frame argument in more intelligent terms that you are capable of doesn't mean they are spouting "pseudo-intellectual drivel".

It may seem that way to you, but only because you are trying to compete out of your class.

Now that is pretty funny. And did you really just exalt yourself to that level? Even funnier.

[homersapien 11,385]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I would be the first to admit that I can't understand where you are coming from.

[AUDub 11,153]

Pornography has victims and is legal. That someone volunteers to be used and viewed as a thing rather than a person doesn't mean they aren't still a victim.

This reminds me of an interesting point. There is supposedly an ongoing ethical debate within the psychology community concerning the use of simulated pornography (drawings, cartoons, and such) as a means of treatment for pedophiles. I'm interested in your opinion on that. I'm not really sure what to think.

[Weegle777 78]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I would be the first to admit that I can't understand where you are coming from.

And you say that I am trying to compete out of my class? You can't even understand simple logic.

[homersapien 11,385]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I would be the first to admit that I can't understand where you are coming from.

And you say that I am trying to compete out of my class? You can't even understand simple logic.

I said I didn't understand you.

But then, I don't think you understand yourself. After all, you don't even seem to even remember your own arguments.

And yes, I think you are way over your head. I think you post things without really thinking them through and when exposed, you either deny or start obfuscating. Just as in this thread, where you absolutely insisted you weren't associating gay marriage with the acceptance of pedophilia until (whoops!), someone goes back to find the posts where you did exactly that.

(Have you organized that crowd of men (with "real cajones") to gather up their guns and march on Washington yet?)

[Weegle777 78]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I would be the first to admit that I can't understand where you are coming from.

And you say that I am trying to compete out of my class? :laugh:/> You can't even understand simple logic.

I said I didn't understand you.

But then, I don't think you understand yourself. After all, you don't even seem to even remember your own arguments.

And yes, I think you are way over your head. I think you post things without really thinking them through and when exposed, you either deny or start obfuscating. Just as in this thread, where you absolutely insisted you weren't associating gay marriage with the acceptance of pedophilia until (whoops!), someone goes back to find the posts where you did exactly that.

(Have you organized that crowd of men (with "real cajones") to gather up their guns and march on Washington yet?)

Guess you missed where I admitted(as real men do) that I was in error. And how can I be in over my head? I hope you don't mean because you are posting. That would be laughable.

[autigeremt 6,642]

Typical Homerspin. Homer, you need to make a decal and T-Shirt line.

[Weegle777 78]

Typical Homerspin. Homer, you need to make a decal and T-Shirt line. :big:/>

No doubt. I love how he accuses everyone else of being "out of their league." when his arguments fall flat. Never can be a man and admit when he is wrong.

[Aufan59 65]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

Thank God social conservatism is dying.

[DKW 86 7,426]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

Oops missed it again huh?

i now support same sex marriage. Will go and maybe even be a part of the wedding party this summer.

But i easily see the co-opting of the gay argument for the pedophiles. It has been coming fo decades. It will be the next big thing. Watch and see.

The argument that NAMBLA will make is that...THERE IS NO VICTIM IN THEIR MAN-BOY LOVE.

This is just too easy. Folks i dont think it will ever be fully accepted, but watch as it moves forward.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

Oops missed it again huh?

i now support same sex marriage. Will go and maybe even be a part of the wedding party this summer.

But i easily see the co-opting of the gay argument for the pedophiles. It has been coming fo decades. It will be the next big thing. Watch and see.

The argument that NAMBLA will make is that...THERE IS NO VICTIM IN THEIR MAN-BOY LOVE.

This is just too easy. Folks i dont think it will ever be fully accepted, but watch as it moves forward.

So politically, what are you suggesting? Or, are you just predicting future events? Respectfully, just trying to understand. Sorry if I missed again, and again, and..........

[homersapien 11,385]

No one has said anything about homosexual marriage. Can someone please tell me that there is at least one person that gets what I am saying here? Because this guy, in all of his pseudo-intellectual drivel has yet to understand where I am coming from. Am I speaking in a language that you just can't comprehend?

Post #2 you said:

Pretty soon, when homosexual government unions are legalized, it will set the stage for these sickos to push for the unions involving children.

But, haven't some of us here already said that this would happen? Thought so.

So considering that Titan tiger never bothered to explain his OP, you are the one who introduced homosexual marriage to this thread.

You continued this line of thought with your second post (#8):

....if legislation is passed saying that it is now legalized, it very well could lead to other behaviors being classified as "normal".

I will give you the benefit of doubt and not assume you are a complete idiot, but you apparently think we are by lying about something which can be easily checked. (One of the advantages - and disadvantages - of the written word).

Ok, unlike you, I am man enough to admit when I have made an error. Still it doesn't address the fact that you still can't understand where I am coming from.

Actually, I would be the first to admit that I can't understand where you are coming from.

And you say that I am trying to compete out of my class? :laugh:/> You can't even understand simple logic.

I said I didn't understand you.

But then, I don't think you understand yourself. After all, you don't even seem to even remember your own arguments.

And yes, I think you are way over your head. I think you post things without really thinking them through and when exposed, you either deny or start obfuscating. Just as in this thread, where you absolutely insisted you weren't associating gay marriage with the acceptance of pedophilia until (whoops!), someone goes back to find the posts where you did exactly that.

(Have you organized that crowd of men (with "real cajones") to gather up their guns and march on Washington yet?)

Guess you missed where I admitted(as real men do) that I was in error. And how can I be in over my head? I hope you don't mean because you are posting. That would be laughable.

Actually I am no more than average in the class you are trying to operate in. There are posters on here that are sharper than me at half my age. But they have the good sense to simply ignore you, thus preserving their stature.

I, on the other hand, consider you an amusing indulgence.

[homersapien 11,385]

Typical Homerspin. Homer, you need to make a decal and T-Shirt line.

I like it!

[homersapien 11,385]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

Oops missed it again huh?

i now support same sex marriage. Will go and maybe even be a part of the wedding party this summer.

But i easily see the co-opting of the gay argument for the pedophiles. It has been coming fo decades. It will be the next big thing. Watch and see.

The argument that NAMBLA will make is that...THERE IS NO VICTIM IN THEIR MAN-BOY LOVE.

This is just too easy. Folks i dont think it will ever be fully accepted, but watch as it moves forward.

"Fully" accepted? You think practicing pedophiles will become "partially" accepted? How is that going to work?

[Aufan59 65]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

Oops missed it again huh?

i now support same sex marriage. Will go and maybe even be a part of the wedding party this summer.

But i easily see the co-opting of the gay argument for the pedophiles. It has been coming fo decades. It will be the next big thing. Watch and see.

The argument that NAMBLA will make is that...THERE IS NO VICTIM IN THEIR MAN-BOY LOVE.

This is just too easy. Folks i dont think it will ever be fully accepted, but watch as it moves forward.

Except that there is a victim in man-boy love, and everyone realizes that.

Social conservatives are grasping at straws. They have lost the debate on gay marriage, so they are grasping at straws. They lost the constitutional argument. They lost the "treat others as you want to be treated" Christianity argument. All they have left is an appeal to emotion, comparing the morality of homosexuality to pedophilia.

This thread is 18 pages of social conservatives comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, while at the same time denying that they are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. When I pointed out that a moderator was making this comparison(which he was, and he admits that he was), my post got deleted. Social conservatives have run out of logical arguments. Their arguments will get more and more ridiculous until everyone simply ignores them.

[homersapien 11,385]

After 15+ pages, we know where everyone stands on the issue. Am I correct that there are two basic opinions in terms of how the issue relates to politics?

A. People who want the government to block gay marriage because is will give credibility to the pedophile's future argument for rights.

B. Those who are in favor allowing gay marriage and believe that homosexuality and pedophilia have nothing to do with each other.

Seriously. I am trying to understand the political argument. Is my understanding correct?

Oops missed it again huh?

i now support same sex marriage. Will go and maybe even be a part of the wedding party this summer.

But i easily see the co-opting of the gay argument for the pedophiles. It has been coming fo decades. It will be the next big thing. Watch and see.

The argument that NAMBLA will make is that...THERE IS NO VICTIM IN THEIR MAN-BOY LOVE.

This is just too easy. Folks i dont think it will ever be fully accepted, but watch as it moves forward.

Except that there is a victim in man-boy love, and everyone realizes that.

Social conservatives are grasping at straws. They have lost the debate on gay marriage, so they are grasping at straws. They lost the constitutional argument. They lost the "treat others as you want to be treated" Christianity argument. All they have left is an appeal to emotion, comparing the morality of homosexuality to pedophilia.

This thread is 18 pages of social conservatives comparing homosexuality to pedophilia, while at the same time denying that they are comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. When I pointed out that a moderator was making this comparison(which he was, and he admits that he was), my post got deleted. Social conservatives have run out of logical arguments. Their arguments will get more and more ridiculous until everyone simply ignores them.

Well I, for one, have no intention of ignoring them.

I'd like to think that comes from a sense of duty, but to be honest, it's really more of a sport. (If you can call shooting fish in a barrel "sport".)

[Aufan59 65]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

[autigeremt 6,642]

The problem with conservatives and liberals are highlighted in your take, Aufan59. If either side doesn't like what's going on, they want to make the decision for us and keep us from making our own decisions.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

Every "side" in some sense and to some degree or another "forces" their morality on society. People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them. By getting the courts and federal gov't to side with their morality, they have forced it on the rest of the country. Under normal circumstances a person would be expected to do whatever they could to prevent and stop the killing of another person, but because one side has prevailed their morality on society, you are severely restricted in your ability to do so without running afoul of the law.

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral. Most laws impose or enforce some group's moral code on a society. The argument is not about whether we can impose morality or not. It's about whose morality will be imposed.

[Weegle777 78]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

Every "side" in some sense and to some degree or another "forces" their morality on society. People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them. By getting the courts and federal gov't to side with their morality, they have forced it on the rest of the country. Under normal circumstances a person would be expected to do whatever they could to prevent and stop the killing of another person, but because one side has prevailed their morality on society, you are severely restricted in your ability to do so without running afoul of the law.

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral. Most laws impose or enforce some group's moral code on a society. The argument is not about whether we can impose morality or not. It's about whose morality will be imposed.

Very well said Titan.

[japantiger 4,051]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

Every "side" in some sense and to some degree or another "forces" their morality on society. People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them. By getting the courts and federal gov't to side with their morality, they have forced it on the rest of the country. Under normal circumstances a person would be expected to do whatever they could to prevent and stop the killing of another person, but because one side has prevailed their morality on society, you are severely restricted in your ability to do so without running afoul of the law.

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral. Most laws impose or enforce some group's moral code on a society. The argument is not about whether we can impose morality or not. It's about whose morality will be imposed.

Well put....

[Aufan59 65]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

I generally agree that morality is being forced with Roe v Wade, but that is just one example. Meanwhile, social conservatives have a laundry list of morals that they want to enforce. To pretend that every side is equally as guilty of forcing their morality on others is just false.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral.

Nonsense, government was designed to be neutral on morality. Government is not designed to enforce morals, but to protect liberty.

Yet, it isn't neutral. You have merely decided that a certain stance is "neutral" and declared all that deviates from that as an imposition.

[homersapien 11,385]

I think you are right, it is a sense of duty. Social conservatives feel a sense of duty to force their morality on society.

If the Bible ruled the day, Sandusky would be paying his victims 50 shillings and the victims would be forced to marry Sandusky. Thank God social conservatives are smart enough to ignore some parts of the Bible...

Every "side" in some sense and to some degree or another "forces" their morality on society. People who see allowing women more reproductive "freedom" have a morality that says a pre-born human being is not a person and therefore it is permitted to kill them. By getting the courts and federal gov't to side with their morality, they have forced it on the rest of the country. Under normal circumstances a person would be expected to do whatever they could to prevent and stop the killing of another person, but because one side has prevailed their morality on society, you are severely restricted in your ability to do so without running afoul of the law.

Let's drop this pretense that social conservatives are attempting to impose some morality on others that somehow deviates from some objective "neutral" stance. There is no neutral. Most laws impose or enforce some group's moral code on a society. The argument is not about whether we can impose morality or not. It's about whose morality will be imposed.

A few problems with that argument:

1) First you presume that every abortion constitutes murder which may be your opinion, but it is not generally held by everyone, so you start by "begging the question". (To put it another way you are trying to impose your position that all abortion is murder on everyone who doesn't believe that.)

2) Those people who are "getting the government and federal courts" to side with them, while in the national majority, don't have direct influence over the courts. The government on the other hand, responds to the majority of their constituents, which is why you see so many anti-abortion laws being passed. But these are clearly only local majorities - if majorities at all - so it will be interesting to see how this trend holds up.

3) (And most importantly) The legal right to have an abortion does not impose a requirement on anyone. No one is required to get an abortion. On the other hand, making abortion illegal most definitely imposes your morality on others as they can no longer receive a once-legal medical procedure.

Your post represents a typical evangelical Christian tactic. You assume the roll of victim hood simply when you can't impose your beliefs on others. A classical example is when the president of the Southern Baptists once claimed that opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools was "anti Christian".

[TitanTiger 20,498]

A few problems with that argument:

1) First you presume that every abortion constitutes murder which may be your opinion, but it is not generally held by everyone, so you start by "begging the question". (To put it another way you are trying to impose your position that all abortion is murder on everyone who doesn't believe that.)

Uh,no.. I didn't presume that every abortion is murder (even though I do believe that vast majority of them are). That wasn't even part of the argument. I simply pointed out that on that subject, the "neutral" position is not the pro-choice one and therefore the anti-abortion position deviates from that. My point was, there is no neutral on this subject. Whether the anti-abortion side wins the day in the courts or the pro-choice side does, the winning side has imposed their morality on everyone.

3) (And most importantly) The legal right to have an abortion does not impose a requirement on anyone. No one is required to get an abortion. On the other hand, making abortion illegal most definitely imposes your morality on others as they can no longer receive a once-legal medical procedure.

It imposes a lot of things on a many people. It imposes on the average person NOT to stop what they believe to be a murder under penalty of law. In fact, it turns it on its head. If I saw a mother trying to kill her newborn, I'd not only have the right to forcibly stop her, I'd have the obligation to. Legal abortion enshrines the killing as legal and actually prevents one from saving human life. It imposes on communities to permit such establishments to be allowed in their communities. In some cases it imposes on medical professionals to facilitate abortions...requiring doctors and pharmacists to choose between keeping their jobs and prescribing/filling abortion inducing medications.

Your post represents a typical evangelical Christian tactic. You assume the roll of victim hood simply when you can't impose your beliefs on others. A classical example is when the president of the Southern Baptists once claimed that opposing the teaching of creationism in public schools was "anti Christian".

You really need to brush up on the ol' debate skills and logical fallacies. I didn't assume anything here. I merely pointed out that it is BS to portray only one side of various moral and social issues as the side that is imposing morality while the other is just being neutral and not imposing morality at all.

The last sentence is a non-sequitur and a complete red herring to anything I said.