Pope calls gay marriage evil

[Ex-Cyber]

Why do you feel that you are entitled to push (or try to - because it really is pushing, whether right or wrong - legally or morally) your beliefs on others?

I generally try to ask questions instead of simply making assertions, because ideally it is a test of my beliefs as well as those of others, and in my experience only the most talented trolls bother to keep a line of BS going in the face of careful questioning.

[TreyDay]

when I talk about how fat you are, that hurts you for real cuz it's funny AND true.

Why would anyone want to hurt Roofus?

Because he's trying to hurt me. Even though his attempts are futile, I have to reply back and hurt him. Even if someone throws a little insult at you, I find it is better to just go all out on them. Even though it kinda hurts their feelings, it keeps flame wars from continuing much further from that post. Because they finally shut the fuck up and let you do your own thing.

[hearld500]

[farrell2k]

Ignoring points or facts that are irrelevant is one thing, and not a particularly good way to win an argument. Ignoring facts on the basis that you cannot effectively argue against them, which is what you are most obviously doing, is another. If any of us raise points which you feel to be invalid, then it is upon you to demonstrate effectively how they are invalid. You have not done this.

I don't have to demonstrate anything. The law has already done this.

Marriage is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege is: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. The privilege of marriage has been granted to one class. Your feeling of why you think marriage is a right does not and will not change the fact that it is most certainly not a right. In order to be discrimnated against, you have to be unjustly denied something to which you have the right, thus same-sex couples are not being discriminated against. Your entire argument is not valid, whether you choose to believe it or not. You should change your argument "Marriage should be a right."

Is that really how it works? I thought it was just that no blind person could pass a driver's test, not that they were actually denied the right to attempt it. Who knows, maybe someday, we'll have a bunch of Daredevil's driving around...

You could get your license, then go blind. I suppose you could also have a license and be blind as well then. Lets hope that every state denies drivers tests to the blind

[greay]

Let's look at the definition of "right", shall we?

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

SYNONYMS:
right, privilege, prerogative, perquisite, birthright These nouns apply to something, such as a power or possession, to which one has an established claim. Right refers to a legally, morally, or traditionally just claim: ?I'm a champion for the Rights of Woman? (Maria Edgeworth). ?An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment? (Hugo L. Black). Privilege usually suggests a right not enjoyed by everyone: Use of the company jet was a privilege reserved for the top executives. Prerogative denotes an exclusive right or privilege, as one based on custom, law, or office: It is my prerogative to change my mind. A perquisite is a privilege or advantage accorded to one by virtue of one's position or the needs of one's employment: ?The wardrobe of her niece was the perquisite of her [maid]? (Tobias Smollett). A birthright is a right to which one is entitled by birth: Many view gainful employment as a birthright.

A privilege is a right not enjoyed by everyone.

And discriminate:

To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

Not allowing a blind person to drive is discrimination. As evidenced by this example, not all discrimination is necessarily bad. A blind person behind the wheel of a car would be a danger to others on the road. If a blind person could somehow demonstrate that he/she could drive w/o being a danger, then the discrimination would be unjust.

Gay marriage endangers no one, however, so the analogy is ridiculous.

[Tyne]

I think this topic should be locked.

Whys that?
It's a discussion.

A flamebait one, look at Roofus and Treydey - they're going at each other instead of discussing the topic.

[OneThirty8]

Ignoring points or facts that are irrelevant is one thing, and not a particularly good way to win an argument. Ignoring facts on the basis that you cannot effectively argue against them, which is what you are most obviously doing, is another. If any of us raise points which you feel to be invalid, then it is upon you to demonstrate effectively how they are invalid. You have not done this.

I don't have to demonstrate anything. The law has already done this.

By now, you should know that I am not as easilly dissuaded as you would like, and an argument such as this is not likely to make me back down. It's akin to the "I'm your mother, and that's why" argument we all got tired of as children, which is to say that it entirely disregards the real matter in question in an attempt to avoid backing yourself up with well-reasoned counters to my argument. In order to win a debate, you do have to demonstrate effectively any point which you are using as a basis for your argument. In many cases, as in this particular case, you have not done this effectively. You have repeatedly pointed to the currrent laws which, while important, are not the only important consideration.

Marriage is not a right, but a privilege. A privilege is: A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. The privilege of marriage has been granted to one class. Your feeling of why you think marriage is a right does not and will not change the fact that it is most certainly not a right. In order to be discrimnated against, you have to be unjustly denied something to which you have the right, thus same-sex couples are not being discriminated against. Your entire argument is not valid, whether you choose to believe it or not. You should change your argument "Marriage should be a right."

A right is the entitlement to have or to do (something.) What exactly is that something? It is likely to be an advantage, immunity, permission, or benefit. That list is not inclusive of everything that would fall under the heading of what a right would be, but it is a list of things to which you may be legally entitled. Because a right is the 'legal or moral entitlement to have or do (something),' and a privilege essentially is a legal entitlement, at least so far as it pertains to this discussion, our privileges can not be set apart as seperate from our rights. Our privileges are one of the several sub-categories that our rights might fall under. This is not to say that we are all entitled to the same privileges, which is why these do not fall under the category of 'moral rights' (which are not to be confused with 'intellectual property rights,' which you seem to have alluded to before even though they are not at all relevant to the discussion. ). Furthermore, discrimination is most certainly not limited to infringement of those particular rights recognized by farrell2k, and gay people most certainly are discriminated against in this country.

My argument is sound. I have used several methods of demonstrating the validity of my position over the last 19 pages. You have used one in an attempt to find major fault in all of the evidence, technique, and wit that I have used to back my position, and have not been able to succeed, as much as you would like others to believe you have.

*edit* forgot to refresh the page after dinner, so I didn't notice that greay also effectively argued the same points I just did.

[|darc|]

I like pie.

[Roofus]

when I talk about how fat you are, that hurts you for real cuz it's funny AND true.

You are incapable of hurting me. True dat dawg fo sheezy.

[TreyDay]

when I talk about how fat you are, that hurts you for real cuz it's funny AND true.

You are incapable of hurting me. True dat dawg fo sheezy.

It might not hurt, but you think about it when you sleep.

[Roofus]

when I talk about how fat you are, that hurts you for real cuz it's funny AND true.

You are incapable of hurting me. True dat dawg fo sheezy.

It might not hurt, but you think about it when you sleep.

That was 100x funnier than anything you've previously written. Oh snap dawg fo shizzle.

[AuroEdge]

I'm guessing that nobody here is in a gay civil union and doesn't plan on going into one soon. So, why is everybody defending it in such a tizzy over it? There's much more important things to be doing that worrying about a ridiculous issue. It's kind of like how millions of people die in Africa each year because of civil war. Nobody really seems to notice. But, if a little girl is kidnapped, raped, & murdered in our own country all of a sudden this one person matters. You can't have your Jell-O and Bill Cosby at the same time.

[megaman8x]

when I talk about how fat you are, that hurts you for real cuz it's funny AND true.

You are incapable of hurting me. True dat dawg fo sheezy.

It might not hurt, but you think about it when you sleep.

That was 100x funnier than anything you've previously written. Oh snap dawg fo shizzle.

just as funny when nerds used black slang in 2003.

back on topic, I dont see anything wrong with being gay, its not affecting you and saying children learn to be gay from other gays is stupid is just plain ignorant, you mine as well say see a dog lick his nuts make you want to do it to.

[Skynet]

just as funny when nerds used black slang in 2003.

Which do you classify as? A nerd or black? Or both?

And don't say you're not a nerd, coz you don't like star wars, because obviously you wouldn't be on a forum about a piece of videogaming hardware.

[farrell2k]

And discriminate:

To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice: was accused of discriminating against women; discriminated in favor of his cronies.

Not allowing a blind person to drive is discrimination. As evidenced by this example, not all discrimination is necessarily bad. A blind person behind the wheel of a car would be a danger to others on the road. If a blind person could somehow demonstrate that he/she could drive w/o being a danger, then the discrimination would be unjust.

Without regard to individual merit is the key phrase. The blind are not being discriminated aganst, they are simply not qualified to receive the privilege of a drivers license, as you must be able to see. There is a difference.

[BaldMonk]

Wow... this thing still going?

I can't be arsed reading it any more... it's just more of the same biggot-ness junk...

AuroEdge: I think someone mentioned they were gay earlier in the topic (I'm not going to look back to find out... too tired) and I guarantee to them, it's not a small issue, and to me, an issue that needs to be addressed, and changed to accomodate a large number of people should be fought for. And about Africa, it's tragic too, but can't be as easily resolved as something like this, or debated as well... but to relate to this topic, back in the day, biggots woulda just said "Let the blackies starve. They're different than us and don't deserve to breath our air"... and I bet some still do... and think they're right... just like here.

...in much the same way the biggots on here are trying to deny the fair and equal rights of others.

This thread kinda makes me want to go hunting for a copy of Redneck Rampage

[farrell2k]

My argument is sound. I have used several methods of demonstrating the validity of my position over the last 19 pages. You have used one in an attempt to find major fault in all of the evidence, technique, and wit that I have used to back my position, and have not been able to succeed, as much as you would like others to believe you have.

The only thing you have shown is that you believe marriage to be a right, despite the fact that it is not.

When the federal or your state gov't writes into law that everyone has the right to marriage, it will be a right. This is something tat MA has not even done. Until then, your incessant babbling of how you feel it is a right is just that, your feeling on why it should be a right and nothing more. Maybe in la la land marriage is a right, but in the real world it is not. You have no rights other than the ones given to you under law.

It no longer matters that other people believe me or not. The law is on my side, and proves marriage is not a right. Even in the face of this undisputable evidence, you and other still believe something which is not true. I find that VERY amusing.

I am sure you'll reply with the same. Go on.

[OneThirty8]

My argument is sound. I have used several methods of demonstrating the validity of my position over the last 19 pages. You have used one in an attempt to find major fault in all of the evidence, technique, and wit that I have used to back my position, and have not been able to succeed, as much as you would like others to believe you have.

The only thing you have shown is that you believe marriage to be a right, despite the fact that it is not.

I don't know how to explain this any more tactfully. You can not win an argument by repeating the same assertion over and over again without supporting evidence. When the small bit of evidence you have presented is called into question, you must present new evidence or you have lost the argument. I have demonstrated why marriage is a right. You refuse to admit the fact that it is a valid assertion, and I have presented evidence which backs this up. Rather than try to show that I'm wrong (which I'm not, but you insist that I am) you have simply repeated your claim that marriage is not a right. In order to do this, you have to show that a privilege is not a right. You made a weak attempt to show this one time, and I turned it around on you. The ball is still in your court, brother.

When the federal or your state gov't writes into law that everyone has the right to marriage, it will be a right. This is something tat MA has not even done. Until then, your incessant babbling of how you feel it is a right is just that, your feeling on why it should be a right and nothing more. Maybe in la la land marriage is a right, but in the real world it is not. You have no rights other than the ones given to you under law.

You're still on that kick? And you still don't see how that shows that marriage is a legal right afforded only to certain people, which places it in the subcategory of 'privilege?' You have also demonstrated your ignorance of the fact that there are certain rights which everybody has, and which do not have to be explicitly afforded by the government. The framers of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence saw this. Why do you refuse to see it?

It no longer matters that other people believe me or not. The law is on my side, and proves marriage is not a right. Even in the face of this undisputable evidence, you and other still believe something which is not true. I find that VERY amusing.

Very good.. the law is on your side. Yet again you have ignored the entire argument, which says that the law is not the only important consideration. What I find very amusising is the fact that you seem to honestly believe these ridiculous assertions of yours.

[Untamed]

I think someone mentioned they were gay earlier in the topic (I'm not going to look back to find out... too tired) and I guarantee to them, it's not a small issue, and to me, an issue that needs to be addressed, and changed to accomodate a large number of people should be fought for.

There are three gay people on this forum, that I know of.

spaghetti
greay
and me

[farrell2k]

I don't know how to explain this any more tactfully. You can not win an argument by repeating the same assertion over and over again without supporting evidence. When the small bit of evidence you have presented is called into question, you must present new evidence or you have lost the argument. I have demonstrated why marriage is a right.

I don't have to win any arguments. You cannot question fact, despite how you feel about it. No one has the right to marriage. You have done nothing but demonstrate that you think it should be a right.

State legislatures have always exercised full control over marriage and have regulated it by laws based on principles of public policy.

The state has the power to determine the conditions on which a marriage may be contracted and dissolved. It may be regulated, controlled and modified, and rights growing from it modified or even abolished by the legislature. Marriage may be regulated by the state.

If you don't believe me, you could always go to china to try and exercise your right to free speech by publicly speaking out against the chinese gov't. You'll quickly find that you do not have the right to free speech. The only rights you have are the rights given to you.

By all means, keep on with your silly notions.