Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Clearly I can't participate in this debate right now. I'm getting tired of all the "of course you'll understand my position now, you foolish boy" remarks by Dirty Name, so perhaps I'll check in on it at a later date.

Typical excuse for quitting a debate when you find yourself running out of defensible arguments. In this case, one only needs to read the posts on this page to know I've never said any such thing, yet you called me a "condescending bastard."

Let the record reflect that I'm still here even after being subjected to a complete inquisition by foes which greatly outnumber those on my side, plenty of flippant comments, arrogance, ignorance and yes, being called a bastard.

I don't profess to have engaged in this debate without projecting some degree of arrogance, either. But there has been nothing I have said which could be considered personally insulting or intentionally offensive to anyone here.

So, Belverron, I bid thee farewell, with a smirk on my face knowing full well that you're really leaving because you simply can't counter my argument.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name Typical excuse for quitting a debate when you find yourself running out of defensible arguments. In this case, one only needs to read the posts on this page to know I've never said any such thing, yet you called me a "condescending bastard." It never ceases to amaze me the blindness some folks have towards their own issues.

Stop being an ass. It takes maturity and restraint to bow out of a debate that is no longer fruitfull, or has degraded to an inane level.

[Dirty Name]

Stop being an ass. It takes maturity and restraint to bow out of a debate that is no longer fruitfull, or has degraded to an inane level.

Wow. More blindness to the truth. You say he has excercised "maturity and restraint," so I guess you missed the part where he called me a "condescending bastard."

This is such a lame debate tactic. Resort to name calling, then act as though your opponent is to blame for being arrogant, condescending and any other personality trait that makes it an affront to humankind to continue to debate such a low-down piece of dirt. What a joke.

And besides, I AM an ass. I am an arrogant, condescending, conservative, racist, homophobic, religious-zealot ass. I can't just stop with a snap of your fingers, Dad.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name So, Belverron, I bid thee farewell, with a smirk on my face knowing full well that you're really leaving because you simply can't counter my argument.

Oh, that was over an hour ago. I'm ready to go again. And you still haven't responded to my last two points, so I wouldn't call the battle yours yet.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name Wow. More blindness to the truth.

This has got to be the most commonly repeated phrase used by bullies like you who want to goad a responce out of a member who has withfrawn from a debate. You have a dilllusion that your arguments are fresh and new - that you have something origional to contribute. Everyone here has heard those same exact arguments many times and is weary of responding to them. Belveron especially, as a homosexual himself. That alone justifies the minor insult he sent your way.

Just accept that your rhetoric is repetitive, redundant and banal - no one wants to talk to you about this.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Typical excuse for quitting a debate when you find yourself running out of defensible arguments.

Excuse? You opine government belongs in the marriage business. Others believe government has abused their role in marriage by creating unconstitutional law.

Once the details behind these arguments were laid out, we reached the point where discussion became "umpteenth" (to use your phrase) recitals of the same talking points with nothing new being added on any side.

To describe the recognition of perpetual recitals of the same information as an "excuse for quitting a debate when you find yourself running out of defensible arguments" speaks to your inability to acknowledge when the "umpteenth" point has been reached, despite the fact that you use the phrase ad nauseum.

Quote by: Dirty Name It never ceases to amaze me the blindness some folks have towards their own issues.

Look in the mirror.

[belverron]

Maybe now I'm done....

[Dirty Name]

And another thing. Any time I engage in a debate anywhere, I am trying to move the discussion forward to the point where I ask a question which forces my opponent(s) to either:

a) Provide an answer that contradicts their earlier position (perfect example is post #1080 by Starboy).
b) Refuse to answer to avoid contradicting themselves.

That is where this debate now stands. I asked a key question, based on everyone's earlier responses to my posts, which has yet to be answered by anyone (except in the form of a new question posed in response - which I of course answered).

That question is:

What is the difference, in the eyes of a government responsible for bestowing benefits on people, between a gay couple and two straight women sharing an apartment who wish to form a partnership?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name What is the difference, in the eyes of a government responsible for bestowing benefits on people, between a gay couple and two straight women sharing an apartment who wish to form a partnership?

Nothing

[Dirty Name]

Once the details behind these arguments were laid out, we reached the point where discussion became "umpteenth" (to use your phrase) recitals of the same talking points with nothing new being added on any side.

You can post your point of view all day long. I'm here to dissect it, and I have allowed you to dissect my own. I have answered every question posed to me that I am aware of. If I have missed one, ask it now and I will respond.

The same cannot be said for you and your friends.

And by the way, when I used the word "umpteenth" I was referring to the fact that my position was mischaracterized and my interlocutor was attempting to frame my position in a way I have never advocated, forcing me to repeat myself for the "umpteenth time."

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Prometheus Quote: Quote by: Dirty Name What is the difference, in the eyes of a government responsible for bestowing benefits on people, between a gay couple and two straight women sharing an apartment who wish to form a partnership? Nothing

I agree. And based on that, I don't see how the government could refuse to extend "marriage benefits" to people who don't profess sexual intimacy with one another. Which means that "marriage benefits" could be legally extended to any two people declaring a non-sexual partnership. Which in turn means that virtually any two people could qualify for "marriage benefits."

Do you agree or disagree with this analysis?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name I agree. And based on that, I don't see how the government could refuse to extend "marriage benefits" to people who don't profess sexual intimacy with one another. Which means that "marriage benefits" could be legally extended to any two people declaring a non-sexual partnership. Which in turn means that virtually any two people could qualify for "marriage benefits." Do you agree or disagree with this analysis?

Sure. I've been on record as supporting gay marriage for months. What are you driving at?

[Dirty Name]

So you agree that ANY two people should be allowed to declare a non-sexual partnership which would qualify them as the exact same legal equivalent of a married couple?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name And another thing.

Oh no. Another thing that smells like the same thing, yet again.

Quote by: Dirty Name What is the difference, in the eyes of a government responsible for bestowing benefits on people, between a gay couple and two straight women sharing an apartment who wish to form a partnership?

The problem with the question is that according to the constitution, the government should be blind to the genders of people who want to marry. But you keep insisting that just because the law exists, we should treat it as valid and legal, when some of us clearly described where it is not.

You fail to see the fundamental difference in belief and why another "umpteenth" recital of your question adds nothing to the debate.

In fact, I'm starting to find the endless recital kinda funny in the same way as watching someone repeat an action over and over but expecting a different result.

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name If I have missed one, ask it now and I will respond.

Post #1052. I've brought it up twice, and you didn't deal with it either time. The second time you mentioned owing me a response and then answered a question which was not mine.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Dirty Name Let the record reflect that I'm still here even after being subjected to a complete inquisition by foes which greatly outnumber those on my side, plenty of flippant comments, arrogance, ignorance and yes, being called a bastard.

Inquisition? Your side? Heh! People have argued, yes. I wouldn't call that an inquisition.

But your side constitutes only you, Dirty Name. No one else has agreed with your position. I think most folks believe that marriage is founded on the bedrock of partnership, not procreation. But you have argued your position well and without resorting to name calling. Unfortunately your style is a bit arrogant, and has caused some ill will, and this is unnecessary and trolling:

Quote by: Dirty Name So, Belverron, I bid thee farewell, with a smirk on my face knowing full well that you're really leaving because you simply can't counter my argument.

But belverron likely gets warning points for calling names, here.

Would you folks remember that we are just talkin'? We are not changing the world!

[Dirty Name]

In fact, I'm starting to find the endless recital kinda funny in the same way as watching someone repeat an action over and over but expecting a different result.

And yet, Prometheus finally decided to answer, while you are again on record refusing to answer a very basic question.

The problem with the question is that according to the constituation, the government should be blind to the genders of people who want to marry.

Please cite the passage in the Constitution where you derive this from. And don't forget that the very definition of marriage itself didn't require the explicit description of the genders involved in a marriage relationship. When this country was formed, "marriage = man + woman" just like "water = hydrogen2 + oxygen

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name So you agree that ANY two people should be allowed to declare a non-sexual partnership which would qualify them as the exact same legal equivalent of a married couple?

Yes. Gay, lesbo, incest you name it. Providing both partners are over the age of concent that is.

And more then any two people. Plural marriage should be allowed.

But I only agree with these statements as long as we recognize hetero marriage. I have been a long time proponant of abolishing legal marriage. But as long as we have legal marriage I agree.

Look, I've done enough debate to see that you are leading me somewhere specific. Just get to the point. I am losing patience with your Lawer-like leading questions.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron Post #1052. I've brought it up twice, and you didn't deal with it either time. The second time you mentioned owing me a response and then answered a question which was not mine.

OK. My bad. I'll get on it. Thanks for staying around.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Prometheus Plural marriage should be allowed

Aren't you Mormon?