RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register


Question: Gay Marriage Poll :: Total Votes:75
Poll choices Votes Statistics
Gay marriage should be legal 73  [97.33%]
Gay marriage should not be legal 2  [2.67%]
Guests cannot vote
Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Gay Marriage Poll, It's poll day, apparently< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,11:15   

My prediction:
75% legal
25% not legal

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,11:17   

I am in your 75% prediction.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,11:33   

So far it's 4 to nothing. When are some creationists going to come by and vote against the gays.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,12:36   

At this rate, the American Family must certainly be doomed.  :p

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
steve_h



Posts: 533
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,12:58   

Hi, Wesley, whose mailbox runneth over.

I have  never voted in a poll. If I simply look at the results, I am informed that I have already voted. Which one got my vote in each case - the first one on the list?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:08   

Since gay "marriage" is a contradiction in terms, one can't really vote for it or against it.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:17   

Yet somehow I managed to.

   
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:17   

And yet, thordaddy, I'm guessing you voted.

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:38   

Civil Union marriage is legal in my country - American Society is doomed.  :O

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:45   

Quote
Which one got my vote in each case - the first one on the list?
The button for view results also says 'null vote' on it.

Just to report, since marriage has been legal in England for 137 days (if I counted correctly), that I have seen no signs of the collapse of society. I have also spoken to several of my married friends and they say that their union has not been made meaningless. So, fingers crossed for the next few months.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:45   

Quote
Civil Union marriage is legal in my country
Did all your heterosexual marriages implode as a result?

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:46   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,18:08)
Since gay "marriage" is a contradiction in terms, one can't really vote for it or against it.

This must come as news to all the gay people who have already married each other.

Once again, Thordaddy strikes a blow for utter, screaming irrationality.

And on a personal note, a dear friend of mine just got engaged to her honey, who is currently serving with the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Should I inform her of the danger she and her girl present to all the straight marriages who will come apart because the husband will spend all his time fantasizing about the two of them getting it on?

Also, here's how rational the anti-gay marriage debate really is. (subscription required, I believe)

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,13:53   

Quote
Did all your heterosexual marriages implode as a result?


actually, why assume that civil unions aren't heterosexual to begin with?

In a country where a civil union might (?) carry the same legal weight as a "marriage", i could easily imagine hetero couples deciding it would be a better choice for them.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:46   

So if I say that 3 lesbians or 2 homosexual brothers should be allowed to get a state-sanctioned union...,

Is that a vote for gay "marriage?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:49   

t-diddy-

look at the poll results.

now look at the question you posed.

look at the poll results again.

get it yet?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:49   

Quote (stevestory @ June 07 2006,11:45)
Quote
Civil Union marriage is legal in my country
Did all your heterosexual marriages implode as a result?

This means that religion does not have a hold over the rights of individuals from a political level (unlike a big nation I know of). Probably to do with our gay and lesbian political representatives, our transgendered politician and our atheist agnostic leader!

Fractatious

_its all about the spinchter_

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:50   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,19:46)
So if I say that 3 lesbians or 2 homosexual brothers should be allowed to get a state-sanctioned union...,

Is that a vote for gay "marriage?"

Am I the first person to notice that Thordaddy never seems to comment at ATBC anymore unless the subject is homosexuality?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,14:55   

doesn't bother me a bit.

it keeps him mostly out of everybody else's hair, and if he wants to explore his sexuality, more power to him I say.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:01   

thordaddy presents: the slippery slope

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:06   

Ichthyic,

In order to vote for or against something, don't we need to know what that something is?

What is gay "marriage?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:15   

21 votes so far, not including yours i guess.

seems pretty clear to everybody else.

wonder why that is...

oh that's right, we're all part of the liberal consipiracy against rationality, right?

let me ask you this:

If you were a senator and had to vote on the constitutional ammendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, how could you vote?

heck, they haven't even defined what marriage is yet?  have they?

frickin' idiot.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,15:46   

Thordaddy, I had a change of heart. I'm your brother in arms now.

Yee Haw! Ride 'em cowboy! Da da dum da da dum da da da dah dum.

Science my hooey. Butter up, Fill 'er up. And you'd look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two !!!
:O  :p  ;)  ???  :D  :(  :)  :angry:  :D :O  :O

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:03   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,20:06)
Ichthyic,

In order to vote for or against something, don't we need to know what that something is?

What is gay "marriage?"

Thordaddy, you seem awfully obsessed with this subject... What's that about?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:29   

Like somebody on This Week pointed out, gay marriage is inevitable, because if you look at polls of younger people, they just don't have the animosity toward gays that older people have, on average.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:38   

Quote (stevestory @ June 06 2006,21:29)
Like somebody on This Week pointed out, gay marriage is inevitable, because if you look at polls of younger people, they just don't have the animosity toward gays that older people have, on average.

Yup. If you look at polls on gay marriage, acceptance of the idea goes up continually the younger the person is, to the point where voters in their twenties approve the idea outright. This is why the Fundies want a constitutional amendment against it, because they want a ban locked into law before the numbers run totally against them.

But the constitutional amendment ain't gonna happen. Bush just talks it up to make the rubes happy and to distract the masses from his myriad of fuckups.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,16:54   

I know, and what's hilarious is they fall for it every time. Whenever the republicans need some votes, they say "Ban Gay Marriage" or "Ban Abortion" or something, and all the AFDave types start yelling and jumping up and down and go vote for the GOP, which then goes back to ignoring them. They are rubes, and they get played.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:22   

Icky,

So would a vote for gay "marriage" include the state-sanctioning of 3 lesbians or 2 homosexual brothers forming a "civil union?"

Yes or No?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:25   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,22:22)
Icky,

So would a vote for gay "marriage" include the state-sanctioning of 3 lesbians or 2 homosexual brothers forming a "civil union?"

Yes or No?

Thordaddy, I think you really need to find someone to talk this out with. I have some phone numbers for you, if you think that'd be helpful.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:25   

I voted for gay marriage because I plan on proposing to Thordaddy. Can't wait to see him in skimpy lingerie.  ;)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:30   

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 06 2006,22:25)
I voted for gay marriage because I plan on proposing to Thordaddy. Can't wait to see him in skimpy lingerie.  ;)

I'd be real careful there. TD strikes me like one of those hyper-closeted types who'd go berserk and start shooting people if anyone ever hit on him.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:35   

Icky, would a vote for gay "marriage" include the state-sanctioning of a man who wants to simultaneously marry a three year old intergender child and this plane right here



?

Yes or no.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:37   

More like he(TD) would shoot someone who rejected him when he hit on them.

....American Beauty.

I'll bet he does NOT fantasize about Lesbians.

Frikken Fag.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:47   

Will anyone define what exactly we are voting for or against or will we continue with these silly distractions?

What is gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All of the above

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:56   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,22:47)
Will anyone define what exactly we are voting for or against or will we continue with these silly distractions?

You know all of those gay couples out there who keep trying to get married?  We're voting to let them do so.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,17:59   

I agree with thor

Will anyone define what exactly we are voting for or against or will we continue with these silly distractions?

What is gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. The entire cast of Happy Days
c. a lesbian, a John Deere tractor, and the lesbian's tattoo artist
d. All of the above

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:03   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,22:47)
Will anyone define what exactly we are voting for or against or will we continue with these silly distractions?

What is gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All of the above

Seriously, Thordaddy, we're not unsympathetic. Just level with us about why this is such an overwhelming obsession for you. Really.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:04   

improvius,

Since we are talking about probably less than 1% of the American population, the visibility of gay people looking to get state-coerced validation is rather invisible even here in Southern California.

Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:07   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,23:04)
improvius,

Since we are talking about probably less than 1% of the American population, the visibility of gay people looking to get state-coerced validation is rather invisible even here in Southern California.

Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"

I'm confused.  Do you want a list of names, or what?  I can probably dig up quite a few from varioous articles if you like.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:11   

Quote
Icky, would a vote for gay "marriage" include the state-sanctioning of a man who wants to simultaneously marry a three year old intergender child and this plane right here


only if there was some good mathiness involved.

Quote
I have some phone numbers for you, if you think that'd be helpful.


those wouldn't  be 976 numbers by any chance?

T-diddy,

this is a poll, not a place to start your idiotic ranting all over again.  you already have a thread for that.

scram.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:13   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 06 2006,23:04)
improvius,

Since we are talking about probably less than 1% of the American population, the visibility of gay people looking to get state-coerced validation is rather invisible even here in Southern California.

Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"

Seriously Thordaddy, you don't have to keep doing this. We won't judge you harshly. This whole self-hatred thing isn't healthy.

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:16   

Quote

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!


with strong, supple arms...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:17   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 06 2006,23:16)
Quote

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!


with strong, supple arms...

Don't forget hairy.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:26   

Quote (improvius @ June 06 2006,23:17)
Quote (Ichthyic @ June 06 2006,23:16)
Quote

Thordaddy! We're reaching out to you!


with strong, supple arms...

Don't forget hairy.

I can't really see Thordaddy being into the 'bear' type.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,18:47   

The question to me is, why the h-e-doubletoothpicks is the state involved in this thing called "marriage" anyway? If people want to establish a legally recognized relationship based on mutual affection, or based on some shared interest in keeping property together, or because they want to raise children together, or because they each want the other to be the primary "decider" in emergency medical situations, or whatever, then let's have a standard legal means by which to establsh such. Then, if people want to go through a ceremony to call attention to the commitment they are making to each other, whether it be based on a religion or not, go for it.

In terms of what is commonly called "gay marriage," my problem is always this: those who are against "gay marriage" always place the onus on those in favor to provide some explanation as to why "gay people" should be allowed to marry. To me, that is such an unAmerican perspective. This country was founded on the rights of individuals, and if certain rights are to be accorded to some and not to others, it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment. If we recognize that those above a certain age have the right to make decisions about their lives, and if we value the 1st amendment in full, then what possible justification can there be for denying two people of the same sex the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship, when that same recognition is granted on those who are of different sexes?

AND ANOTHER THING (sorry, went into afDave mode there): gender reassignment is a reality, folks, and a good thing, too. So here's the question: if a person legally changes his/her gender (read: state-recognized sex), and this person wishes to get married, what must the sex of the person he or she marries be?

*phew* Okay, that's enough, I know most everyone reading this gets it, I just put this up here hoping that t-diddy's head would 'splode.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:05   

Quote
it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment.


nawww, they gave up trying to argue the justification in favor of changing the rulebook.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:10   

Quote
In terms of what is commonly called "gay marriage," my problem is always this: those who are against "gay marriage" always place the onus on those in favor to provide some explanation as to why "gay people" should be allowed to marry. To me, that is such an unAmerican perspective. This country was founded on the rights of individuals, and if certain rights are to be accorded to some and not to others, it is up to those who deny that right to justify their actions in terms of the Constitution, especially in light of the 14th amendment. If we recognize that those above a certain age have the right to make decisions about their lives, and if we value the 1st amendment in full, then what possible justification can there be for denying two people of the same sex the right to enter into a legally recognized relationship, when that same recognition is granted on those who are of different sexes?


I submit to you that for the most part, this is how modern young people see the issue, and therefore gay marriage is an inevitability. Because gay people are not as stigmatized as they once were, young people are growing up and not seeing them in a stigmatized way, and it's only that stigma which keeps the discrimination in place. Barring some kind of overarching federal interference, gay marriage will soon be a fact of life in the blue states at least.

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:13   

clamboy,

Which one is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:17   

e. Adam and Steve (no relation)
f. The entire cast of Happy Days
g. a lesbian, a John Deere tractor, and the lesbian's tattoo artist
h. All of the above
i. All of the above, plus six dolphins
j. captain kirk with a martian with inscrutable genitals
k. chewbacca and his weight in ewoks
l. thordaddy and his shower head

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:18   

t-diddy -

nobody's biting, slick.  go peddle your wares on your own thread.

...and put on those leather chaps i like so much.

e. Adam and Steve (no relation)
f. The entire cast of Happy Days
g. a lesbian, a John Deere tractor, and the lesbian's tattoo artist
h. All of the above
i. All of the above, plus six dolphins
j. captain kirk with a martian with inscrutable genitals
k. chewbacca and his weight in ewoks
l. thordaddy and his shower head
m. a Winnebago--####, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away!
n....and a baby's arm holding an apple.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:20   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,00:13)
clamboy,

Which one is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above

EVERYBODY, gather around! I think Thordaddy needs a big HUG!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,19:25   

hmm, is there an emoticon for a group hug?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Crabby Appleton



Posts: 250
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,20:29   

Quote (Ichthyic @ June 07 2006,00:25)
hmm, is there an emoticon for a group hug?

No, but there is one for what T-daddy likes.

(  o  )
/ /  \ \

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,20:46   

Arden, that's quite the facelift!

Did you do it for Thordaddy?  I hear he does like those smooth cheeks...

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,20:52   

Quote
No, but there is one for what T-daddy likes.


Here's another:
             
             vvv
           ((oo))
         ---| ^|        
        /     \/     (__)
       /Tdad\\    (oo)
       |  /---^^---\/  
       | /|         ||  
       || ||------|||

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,21:07   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,00:13)
clamboy,

Which one is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above


thordaddy,

why do you hate America?

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,21:58   

Funniest thread I've seen for a while.  A great way to start the day at work.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,22:33   

clamboy,

Even though you made an honest, but nonetheless highly tenuous argument for gay "marriage," at least you seemed serious about having an intellectual debate.  So answer the following question so we shall continue.

Which of the following is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above

You see the conundrum you are in, no?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,22:46   

e. Adam and Steve (no relation)
f. The entire cast of Happy Days
g. a lesbian, a John Deere tractor, and the lesbian's tattoo artist
h. All of the above
i. All of the above, plus six dolphins
j. captain kirk with a martian with inscrutable genitals
k. chewbacca and his weight in ewoks
l. thordaddy and his shower head
m. a Winnebago--####, a herd of Winnebago's we're giving 'em away!
n....and a baby's arm holding an apple.
o. several ninjas of the same clan
p. thordaddy, thordaddy's daddy, and thordaddy's daddy's daddy
q. a man and an anatomically correct balloon sculpture of himself
r. ann coulter and the 4 conservative SCOTUS justices
s. eva braun and ann coulter
t. ann coulter and skeletor

You see the conundrum you are in, don't you clam boy? It's quite conundrummy.

   
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,23:34   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,03:33)
You see the conundrum you are in, no?

Nope.  I guess your going to have to explain it to me.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,00:35   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,03:33)
clamboy,

Even though you made an honest, but nonetheless highly tenuous argument for gay "marriage," at least you seemed serious about having an intellectual debate....
You see the conundrum you are in, no?

This is a poll, not a debate. Resurect your gay gene thread to debate. But constantly repeating nonsense is not really debating.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,01:38   

Oh fo' christ's sake TD just bend over Dover and take it like a man.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,02:55   

Quote
Just who is it pining for that contradiction in terms called gay "marriage?"


Here are a few:

44 gay and lesbian couples in NY
Debra Gold, 43 (and her wife), and Carly Nielsen, 22 and Allie Delaney, 20
Curtis Woolbright and his partner Daniel Reyes, and Michael Elsasser and Doug Robinson

Do you get it now TD?  Or should I find some more examples?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:41   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,03:33)
clamboy,

Even though you made an honest, but nonetheless highly tenuous argument for gay "marriage," at least you seemed serious about having an intellectual debate.  So answer the following question so we shall continue.

Which of the following is a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above

You see the conundrum you are in, no?

Thordaddy, let's change the subject. Let's have a different intellectual debate. All of us here.

RESOLVED: Thordaddy is fabulous! How many of us agree?

Now how about that hug!

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:43   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ June 07 2006,10:41)
Thordaddy, let's change the subject. Let's have a different intellectual debate. All of us here.

RESOLVED: Thordaddy is fabulous! How many of us agree?

Now how about that hug!

I usually poke around on this board because I won't start laughing while at work.  So much for that.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,04:50   

Quote (argystokes @ June 07 2006,01:46)
Arden, that's quite the facelift!

Did you do it for Thordaddy?  I hear he does like those smooth cheeks...

Eh, I just felt like it was time for a change of pace. But it's the same person. And believe me, a guy who was much brighter than TD, but who would have completely understood where TD is coming from...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:31   

I understand the conundrum you are in, thor of finland. You're invoking the one argument the "againsts" always and finally use, ye 'ol slippery slope. Sorry, but that dick don't come. Let me just say 4 words: two nonconsanguinous (sp?) rational adults.

And I say thordaddy is not only fabulous, but super spiffy, too!

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:38   

I think if Thordaddy were any further back in the closet, he'd be in Narnia.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,05:53   

Why, he's so thor he can hardly pith!

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,06:48   

...or thit down, athuming he'th a catcher.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,09:44   

He's a hard-drinking, hard-fighting, hard-lovin' man
and he chases the fellas whenever he can---
Thordaddy dances on tables wigglin' in panties
while posing as hetero and singing sea shanties
Hey, oh, hey oh, blow the man down!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13181735/   Gay marriage ban defeated in Senate vote

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,11:28   

I like how Bush qualified, "The people must be heard," with, "on this issue," lest people think he believes the people must be heard on all issues.

This is a good one too:

Quote
Hatch fumed: “Does he really want to suggest that over half of the United States Senate is a crew of bigots?”


Hey, Orren, bigots are as bigots do. And, besides, it wasn't "over half," otherwise it would have gone to cloture!

(Who keeps voting for this idiot?)

We have been somewhat lucky in our State of Washington regarding this issue, since our legislature did the right thing and extended the language of some of our non-discriminatory laws to include not only gays and lesbians, but also transgender folks.

(Speaking of bigots: There were some folks who tried to get the law repealed via initiative. Fortunately, they could not get enough signatures for the initiative to go onto the ballot.)

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/06/06/07/100loc_a1eyman001.cfm

Our two Democrats voted, "Nay." (Lucky for them.)

  
Rod



Posts: 13
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,11:43   

Did you guys scare Who's Your Daddy away? I think he's Super-Fantastic

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:06   

clamboy defines,

Quote
Let me just say 4 words: two nonconsanguinous (sp?) rational adults.


I don't mind you having that definition, but it clearly discriminates against Chrissy, Missy and Sissy and Bo and Luke Duke even though ALL are gay.  Are you not a bigot against some gays?  Isn't your activism leaving some to be discriminated against that don't fit within your new discriminatory and intolerant criteria for marriage?  If gender is an irrelevent criteria for defining marriage then why is "two" and "nonconsanguinous" relevant to defining marriage?

If you can approach these questions with honesty then you would be the first.

Stephen Elliot,

Before we can vote on something, we must know what that something is, no?

What is gay "marriage?"

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:09   

Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense!

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:23   

Quote (argystokes @ June 07 2006,17:09)
Oh no, he's using the Chewbacca Defense!

Indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_Defense

Poor repressed little T-Daddy.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:30   

Dare I respond?

Consanguinity is irrelevant when talking about homosexuals, isn't it?

I personally think that if someone can handle more than one spouse, go for it!

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:45   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:06)
I don't mind you having that definition, but it clearly discriminates against Chrissy, Missy and Sissy and Bo and Luke Duke even though ALL are gay.  Are you not a bigot against some gays?

Ok, now it's YOUR turn.  Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married?  As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue.  So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:46   

Spike,

You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,12:48   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:46)
Spike,

You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all.

I change my vote. Thordaddy is the stupidest poster at ATBC. With this poor a grasp of logic and reality, I'm surprised he can eat meals or work a computer.

(And he STILL refuses to explain this obsession with homos that seems to afflict him...)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:02   

Thordaddy's physics lacks a mu term. All slopes are infinitely slippery.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:07   

Yes, eventually even the most important criteria will become irrelevant: the desire to marry someone.  In this post-gay-marriage-apocalyptic world, not even that will matter.  People will just randomly become married to each other, whether they want to or not.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,13:15   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 07 2006,17:46)
Spike,

You are correct.  Once the criteria of gender becomes irrelevant to marriage then ALL criteria for marriage become irrelevant.  This is why traditional marriage must remain between one man and one woman or we will cease to have an institution at all.

My apologies to everybody else for responding to T-D again. But...

T-Daddy, for my part I desire for 2 consenting adults to be able to choose each other to enter into marriage.

I consider the consent thing important here. I consider them being adults important. I would limit it for 2 simply because of the legal quagmire of permitting marriage to groups of 3+.

There is good reason for preventing fertile sibling marriages. These do not aply to homosexuals. Wether homosexual sibblings are allowed or prevented from marrying, I care not.

Yes, yes T-Daddy, I realise this makes me much more bigotted than you.

EDIT: Sorry T-D I forgot to adress your most excelent point on how all criteria becomes irelevant.

In the UK gays have been alowed to "marry" for a little while now (it is actualy called a civil union). Straight couples are still marrying. Weird hey? Maybe slippery slopes are less steep or have more friction here than USA slippery slopes.

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:02   

If people become randomly married to each other, will they be able to divorce? Or will that go out the window as well? If it does, then the moral conservatives will at least have won -that- battle.

Being in an atheist marriage at this point is probably better than being in a fundie xtian one. The fx's think gay marriage will cause theirs to fall apart. I know it will have no adverse effect on mine.

*******

How do I write a poll? I'd like to find out how many wives men honestly think they can handle. The ones who have never been married will probably vote for 5, 6, or 7. The ones who are married will ask, "Is there a vote for less than one?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,15:49   

Quote
How do I write a poll?


that's a good question, actually.

Is it just me or is the new poll button missing?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:00   

LOL like a timeshare wife. That actually might not be a bad idea. Weekend Wife. I could dig it. 5 nights of smoking drinking playoff-watching pizza-eating bachelorhod, and two days of mild-tempered, romantic pleasantness. not bad, not bad.

Yeah, I don't see the new poll button either. I commented last night that we were dangerously close to pissing off Wesley. When you behave unorthdoxly on this board, like suddenly starting 5 polls for instance, you irritate him. Occasionally he steps in and enforces some propriety. But, it's better than going somewhere else, all things considered.

Why don't you consider all things somewhere else? -we

   
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:01   

What I've found interesting is that while I can see no evidence at all that allowing gay folks to marry would muck up mixed gender marriages,   I do know concretely that the legal steps taken to *prevent* gay marriages  can muck up mixed gender relationships.

Ohio recently passed a law *edit - not a law, an amendment to the state constitution -*  prohibiting same sex marriage that has had the net effect of eliminating common-law marriage in the state, as well as eliminating domestic violence protections for un-married couples living together.

While it's anecdotal,  I also know of one case where a health insurance provider decided on the basis of the state constitution to stop providing insurance to the non-custodial children of unmarried employees.   My neighbors daughter lost her health insurance because her father's  insurance did this.  

And speaking personally, my own marriage was royally mucked over by it, since my husband and I had a religious ceremony, but are unable to get legally married to a legal f-ck-up involving my adoption.  We had been comfortable with having a common law marriage --  but now have to go to the expense and trouble of hiring lawyers in two states to try and untangle a mess from 25 years ago.

edited for correctness.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:35   

PB-

So much for protecting the American Family.

I hope that you and others are documenting these "government failures" and sounding off about them throughout the state.

Perhaps some lawsuits are in the wings?

  
PennyBright



Posts: 78
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,16:55   

I haven't heard of anyone trying to take it to court,  Spike.    I think due to the fact that what's causing the problem is an amendment to the state constitution -- I'm sure if it were just a law,  there probably would be.

With regards to the insurance case,  I'm not sure what my neighbors are doing - I know they were talking about trying to sue the ins.  provider,  but haven't heard anything about it since.  I'm not sure they would have grounds -- I just don't know the law that well.

--------------
Conversation should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood. - Shakespeare (reputedly)

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,17:25   

thordaddy,

which of the following is straight "marriage"?

A) Brad and Janet
B) Bob, Carol, and Alice
C) Bo Duke and Daisy Duke

Before we can continue, we must define just what the heck we mean by straight "marriage."

But(t) seriously, defend yourself: you grant a particular right/privilege/legal recognition to a certain relationship between a schminkie and a hoohoo (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), but when it's two schminkies (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.) or two hoohoos (nonconsanguinous, over a certain age, etc.), you say, "NYET!" From a traditional American principle of equal standing under the law, it is your duty to justify this arbitrary denial.

Come on, hot stuff, let's hear it. Parading around in those short shorts under those lights must be getting tiring, so why not give us the benefit of your 12" of wisdom?

I ask again, why do you hate America?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,18:28   

Thanks for the reality check Pennybright it certainly stopped me laughing my socks off, from the run of previous posts...good luck.

Clamboy I think I know why TD hates America.

It seems to me he would like to indulge in group sex with a)b)c)d)....z) (not that there is anything wrong with that).......but his religion is against it. Poor Frustrated Fundy.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,19:45   

clamboy asks,

Quote
which of the following is straight "marriage"?

A) Brad and Janet
B) Bob, Carol, and Alice
C) Bo Duke and Daisy Duke

Before we can continue, we must define just what the heck we mean by straight "marriage."


If you aren't sure what most of us call traditional marriage (what you refer to as "straight 'marriage'") then HOW can you vote for or against something that MUST BE equally undefineable?

Traditional marriage is the union between one man and one woman at its most fundamental level.  Each state decides the age of consent and level of nonrelatedness required to be state-sanctioned.

If you consider this an arbitrary definition and consider those that advocate for this definition as haters of America then by what logic does your advocacy for gay "marriage" NOT constitute equal arbitrariness and hatred for America as you seek to radically alter its traditions?

So what is gay "marriage?"

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,19:59   

Quote
Traditional marriage is the union between one man and one woman at its most fundamental level.


unless of course you're living in a society where it isn't.

where does the constitution fall on your scale of "tradition"?

you do amaze.

It's like watching an autistic child with a helmet bang his head against a wall.

over and over and over again.

you couldn't get enough attention on your own dam*n thread, so you came here to bang your head on this wall?

again...

look at the poll data, and ask youself:

who in the 9hells do you possibly hope to convince with your lame-ass, completely idiotic, drivel???

go back to your hovel, idiot.

hugs be damned!  you need brain surgery.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:09   

Icky,

Your poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology.  Are 95% of scientists REALLY political liberals?  

But I digress as you have yet to answer which one of these unions are a gay "marriage?"

a. Adam and Steve
b. Chrissy, Missy and Sissy
c. Bo and Luke Duke
d. All the above

Will you have the courage to answer the question so I can cast my vote?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:15   

Quote
Your poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology.  Are 95% of scientists REALLY political liberals?  


hmm, glancing at the question the poll is asking, and the potential answers....

nope.  don't see anything about liberal ideology there.

or scientists.

seems pretty straigtforward.

It's YOU that's confused about the issue, and projecting your psychology onto it.

it's why we keep asking (only half-jokingly, btw) if you aren't repressing your own sexuality?

being "liberal ideologues" tho, if you came out of the closet we wouldn't think you any less stupid than you are now.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:16   

Quote
Traditional marriage is the union between one man and one woman at its most fundamental level


So you could marry your mom once you've divorced your sister, TD?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:20   

what if his mom was already married to his brother, who also happens to be his father?

would his mom have to divorce his brother/father to marry her son/nephew, before he divorced his sister?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:25   

As always, the good book makes it clear...

"Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother..."
Deuteronomy 27:22

"And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter...it is a wicked thing...."
Leviticus 20:17

Yet Abraham marries his father's daughter and remains God's favorite:


"And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Genesis 20:11-12

from http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/discrepancies/incest/

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:31   

And so we see what thordaddy's arguments add up to: a slippery slope coupled with an appeal to "tradition." I understand what you're saying, thordaddy, but that dog don't lick its own balls. You still haven't explained why you demand an arbitrary denial of rights based on chromosomes.

If you really give a dookie, thordaddy, I'll provide longer answers to your questions. But why should I bother? You present some pretense of interest in discussion, but you ignore the important points raised by folks such as, well, myself, and this tends to lead folk like me to decide to have another shot of Lagavulin rather than take you seriously.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:35   

Icky,

I think your responses mirror those of the other posters in that you aren't really serious about the issue at hand.  You only "support" gay "marriage" because it make YOU feel morally superior.  But you certainly aren't morally superior to those that would eradicate ALL criteria for marriage, are you?  Don't you have a ways to go in your "progressiveness?"

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:38   

Why does it bother you which groups get married, TD?

and as you'll probably try and twist the question around - if the parties involved enjoy it and it hurts no-one, it's fine by me.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:39   

you put out the most idiotic posers anybody's ever seen, and you think WE'RE the one's not taking the issue seriously?

yikes.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:41   

Ichthyic, congrats on 1000 posts!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:43   

Yaay for me!

woot!

*ahem*, er, actually I hadn't even noticed.

(hangs head in shame)

I suppose if I had, I might have made it about something a bit more weighty than a rip on the inbred nature of Thordaddy's family.

meh, maybe not.

:p

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:44   

I just "wanted" to do a "post" in the "style" of Thordaddy.

"Thanks" :D

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,20:45   

clamboy,

And all your argument adds up to is a denial of the slippery-slope arguments based on your inexplicable appeal to tradition?

Traditional marriage bad and gay "marriage" good.  This is your stance.  What you don't explain is how you derive this good from a bad foundation?  You simply throw away the tradition you don't like (opposite sexes) and keep the ones you do (nonrelatedness and 2 person union).  Why do you think that these latter traditions can't be simply discarded like the former?  What is your discriminatory and intolerant excuse for keeping these self-serving traditions intact?

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,21:04   

Tsk, tsk, thordaddy, please point to where I said, "schminkie+hoohoo=BAD." You know I never said that, so, like afDave, GoP, and others of your ilk here, you deliberately misrepresent the positions taken by those you disagree with. Remember, I only asked you to explain why, if "schminkie+hoohoo=GOOD," why does "schminkie+schminkie and hoohoo+hoohoo=BAD." Of course, I did ask you to explain this in light of the Consitution, and in the light of a respect for individual rights. Go for it. I really want to know, you small-waisted stud, you!

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 07 2006,21:16   

clamboy,

If traditional marriage is "good" then why change its definition...?  To make it better?  If making the institution of marriage better involves discarding defining criteria then why not discard ALL of the criteria to give us the best institution?

The law treats ALL citizens equally AS INDIVIDUALS.  It says two things.  First, those who wish to enjoy the benefits of marriage must abide by the rules of the institution.  This APPLIES equally to ALL American citizens.  Likewise, it says those that do not abide by the rules of the institution will not enjoy the benefits of said institution.  Again, this APPLIES EQUALLY to all American citizens.

Where is the inequality in law, I ponder?

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,01:19   

How long has "traditional" marriage been a union between one man and one woman?  I thought there were numerous examples in the Bible of men marrying multiple wives.  The Mormons were doing it here in this country not too long ago (and some still do.)  Isn't this appeal to tradition not even correct?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,02:38   

I answered your questions, TD. Now it's YOUR turn.  Just who are these threesomes and brothers who are clamoring for the right to get married?  As I've demonstrated, there are plenty of REAL same-sex couples affected by this issue.  So please put up some names/numbers/links for the people you think we're discriminating against.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,03:14   

Hey, weren't the slippery slope and the traditional definition of marriage the arguments used against allowing mixed-race couples to marry?

  
clamboy



Posts: 188
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,06:15   

Quote (GCT @ June 08 2006,08:14)
Hey, weren't the slippery slope and the traditional definition of marriage the arguments used against allowing mixed-race couples to marry?


And against granting voting rights to women.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,06:58   

The majority of us modern, liberal people who support gay marriage, don't have to explicitly formulate reasons for gay marriage. In fact, I'd say most of us look at it as a simple issue of discrimination. Gays have historically been mistreated, and this should obviously stop. But motivated by the AtBC discussion about explicit reasons, I got curious about what the best arguments are, and I asked gay people. Jason K pointed me to his essay on the topic, and I find it a pretty good essay, and one worth sharing:

http://positiveliberty.com/2005....ge.html

   
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,09:41   

This was worth posting:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,10:40   

Quote
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?


no, you should use more BBQ sauce.  Then your neighbors will bring beer.

Quote
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?


No need to ask Dr. Laura, a visit to downtown after midnight should reveal some good sources to ask.  Look for guys wearing a lot of jewelry and a fancy hat, maybe driving a purple Lincoln.

Quote
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.


ahhh, but it's the level of the response that acts as a good indicator.  If you ask, and the woman simply states offense, probably not.  If you ask, and she hits you upside your head with a baseball bat, you have your answer.

Quote
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?


naww, if they're working 7 days a week, the work itself will probably do the job for you.

Quote
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?


yes.  have them eat shellfish taken during the months of a red tide.  After they're dead, ask them again.  You can get information on the correct time to harvest for best effect here:

http://seagrant.uaf.edu/features/PSP/psp_page.html

...

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:02   

Didn't Dr. Laura watch that episode of "West Wing" where they had a Dr. Laura character on and the POTUS said almost the -exact same thing-?

See? It's not just Xtain Fundies.

Fundmentalism is a disease that does not discriminate.

(Yes. You can have fun with that ironic statement.)

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:15   

Please, TD (or anyone who cares to try), finish this sentence:

The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage, as opposed to homosexual marriage, is ____.

The only condition is that you use some sort of noun phrase.  Predicate adjectives will not count for credit.  (This means you can't just use the word "obvious", TD.)

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:31   

OH! OH! is this one of them Mad Libber thingies?

ummm.

penis!

tee hee!

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:38   

improvius,

How about myself and my 5 heterosexual brothers with our 3 wives, 4 kids and 2 on the way?  Can we "marry" each other and receive a state-sanctioned "marriage" with all the appropriate benefits and tax reductions?  I'm thinking this will be a great way for us to reduce our collective tax burden and sanctify our love as a family.  No sharing of wives or homosexual activity will take place and we probably won't even live together.  We just want the government benefits.  Can you tell me why I SHOULDN'T get my "marriage" if all consent?

Secondly, if you are seriously drawing a blank concerning the intrinsic value of traditional marriage then you should be equally ambivalent about the instrinsic value of gay "marriage?"  If there is no value in traditional marriage then THERE IS NO VALUE IN gay "marriage."

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:41   

thordaddy-

Take a deep breath, relax, and try to focus on what I actually wrote.  If you can't come up with an answer, that's fine, just say so and we can move on.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:46   

"Traditional" marriage is NOT one man and one woman, it is one man and many women.  The one man one woman thing is actually quite new if you look at history.

Ahh how I long for the good old, traditionaldays ;-)

Speaking of sexual morality, Mary was what 13 or 14 when the space alien/time traveler knocked her up (while she was married to a 73 year old)?

Thordaddy, how many pictures of shirtless men with sweaty biceps do you keep on your bedroom wall at home?  Come on, tell us the truth.  You've got a huge collection of beefcake pictures on your computer, don't you?  You're amongst friends here, you can tell us the truth.

Chris

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,12:46   

You know what, I'll even rephrase it to make it more obvious for you:

The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:01   

improvius,

You ask for real people looking to get state-sanctioned "marriages" and offer up myself as an example and you slyly avoid the Pandora's Box.

Then you ask the following question.

Quote
The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____.


The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:09   

Quote
The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.


actually if we use yourself on point, I'd say you make a great case as to why we should make same-sex marriages the norm.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:16   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:01)
improvius,

You ask for real people looking to get state-sanctioned "marriages" and offer up myself as an example and you slyly avoid the Pandora's Box.

Then you ask the following question.

Quote
The intrinsic societal value of (recent) traditional heterosexual marriage which differentiates it from homosexual marriage, is ____.


The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.

Tor-dude.

Check the poll. See how convincing you are? Has it occured to you to try a different tactic?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:20   

Stephen Elliot,

The poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology and why few actually buy evolutionary theory.  

How an evolutionary theorist could equate homosexual relations with heterosexual relations is in part why very few buy the theories of the evolutionist.

Do you not see this?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:29   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:20)
Stephen Elliot,

The poll just shows how corrupted science is by liberal ideology and why few actually buy evolutionary theory.  

How an evolutionary theorist could equate homosexual relations with heterosexual relations is in part why very few buy the theories of the evolutionist.

Do you not see this?

What does this comment mean?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:29   

Quote
Do you not see this?


LOL.  wow.  haven't you figured out that NOBODY sees this but you?

aren't you troubled by that at all?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:36   

Stephen Elliot,

When England decided to grant gay "marriage," did 96 out of every 100 Britons VOTE in favor?  

Are scientists a monolithic political group as exampled by this poll?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:42   

can't you see you are delusional?

where did you get the idea that everybody who participated in this poll is a scientist?

or a liberal, for that matter?

you've totally lost your mind.

get help.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:46   

Icky,

You don't see anything because you dare not look.  Your poll inadvertantly shows the unanimity of at least this forum's "scientists."  It's a closed question in this community and yet you are blind to how this looks to those of us that reside outside of science.    

Are there supposed to be closed questions in science especially about something as scientifically-ambiguous as homosexuality?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:49   

Thor-daddy, why did you not answer my question?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:52   

54-2.

damn. I had no idea there were so many sensible people around. My estimate would have had us at 42-14

   
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:57   

Thordaddy, since you're convinced that heterosexual marriage is uniquely and essentially valuable in raising future progeny, why are you depriving your current progeny of its benefits? List the duties and responsibilities of a good parent, in order of difficulty, and "getting married" would have to be somewhere around No. 1,396 -- yet you haven't managed to do that one simple thing, despite how crucial you say it is. Very odd. I wonder how you're doing on the 1,395 things that require more sacrifice and commitment.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,13:58   

Stephen Elliot,

My comment means that the poll taken is not representative of the American or European populace at large.  If it were then 96 out of 100 Britons would have voted for gay "marriage."  You know this not to be the case by a long shot.

This means the poll represents a very narrow political and/or scientific view.  One that DOES NOT comport with the larger society.

My question is why?  Icky is trying to convince me that this poll doesn't indicate either the scientific or political mindset of its voters.  What does it represent as it CLEARLY doesn't represent the view of our larger societies?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:06   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,18:58)
Stephen Elliot,

My comment means that the poll taken is not representative of the American or European populace at large.  If it were then 96 out of 100 Britons would have voted for gay "marriage."  You know this not to be the case by a long shot.

This means the poll represents a very narrow political and/or scientific view.  One that DOES NOT comport with the larger society.

My question is why?  Icky is trying to convince me that this poll doesn't indicate either the scientific or political mindset of its voters.  What does it represent as it CLEARLY doesn't represent the view of our larger societies?

Thor-daddy, I would contend that it is you that is mixing things up. In a few posts you have made statements that you consider me a left wing scientist. I am neither.

I like having the Royal family provide the head-of-state for the UK.

I prefered the house of laws as it was, than how it has become.

I would suport the use of the death penalty in very rare cases.

I am totally against afirmative action.

Yet, because I believe that any 2 adults should be able to enjoy the sanctity of marriage together, you believe I am a left-wing extremist. Mybe it is your vision that is defective.

Here is the result of a poll I googled
Quote


 
Should gay marriage be legalized?

 
 

 
THANK YOU, for voting! , Here are the results so far .....


OF 33327 VOTES....



A   Yes  
    43%
B   No  
    52%
C   Not sure  
    4%

But I somehow doubt it is a true indication. Otherwise this event would have probably not have gone so well.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1773
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:14   

Great, just what we need.  Another f*ckin' forty pages of ThorIdiot spouting off his homophobic bigotry.

Good stinkin' guys!  :angry:

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,14:15   

jupiter,

When will gay "marriage" advocates learn that implicitly denigrating traditional marriage undermines their own argument for gay "marriage?"  

If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then you are saying unequivocally that there is no intrinsic societal value in gay "marriage."  So why are you pushing for something that means nothing?

I didn't get married because I wasn't willing to give a commitment and I saw no value in marriage.  You have to learn to see value in marriage lest you be a liberal and see no value in marriage so much so that you will readily equate it with homosexual "marriage."  I see no equality between the two as far bringing forth a more stable and civil society.  I began to see the value in traditional marriage in accordance with the push for gay "marriage" and its attempt to claim moral and societal equivalence under the guise of "progressiveness."

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,15:00   

Stephen Elliot,

My point is that the poll that Icky thinks is informative is only informing us how narrow and particular the views are on this forum.

I suppose you could say that this forum is populated by conservative IDists voting for gay "marriage" by a 96% to 4% margin.  I suppose?

My question is how suspicious of science should we be if it could be said that 96% of scientists are also political liberals?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:15   

Quote
The intrinsic societal value is the recognition of the man/woman complementary and its value to the upbringing of future progeny.  The instrinsic value is in part why you are here even if you deny that value.


So are we to take it that your criteria for determining the value of a marriage is based on the ability to raise children?  Or is it simply producing children that makes the marriage valuable?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:26   

Quote
My question is how suspicious of science should we be if it could be said that 96% of scientists are also political liberals?


Well, that's the cool thing about science: The results are completely independent of the scientist's political beliefs.

I am nothing like a (modern) policital liberal, and yet, when I conduct biological experiments I get the exact same results as my politically conservative and liberal collegues.

When you play basketball do you always pass the ball to your opponent when he is under his basket?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,16:28   

I agree with OA.

what is there left to say that hasn't already been said?

T-diddy is delusional.

best to ignore him altogether at least until he gets off this particular subject, which seems to have wound him up so tight he broke the spring.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Caledonian



Posts: 48
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,17:51   

If the purpose of marriage in the modern world is to assist with the raising of progeny, why do we permit heterosexual couples that have children to divorce?

For that matter, why do we permit sterile people, or people likely to be too old to conceive, to marry?

  
The Wayward Hammer



Posts: 64
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,17:58   

I am married.  17 years now.  No children.  And not going to have any.

T-Daddy, you live with your girlfriend - I am unsure whether you have children with her.

Which one of us is upholding traditional marriage?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,18:45   

improvius,

I answer your question and in return get more questions?  Why not answer my questions, first?

If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then are you not saying that gay "marriage" has NO intrinsic societal value?

If you do see intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage then what is it and how is it exemplified with the addition of gay "marriage?"

Spike,

The result of this poll seem entirely due to one's political beliefs unless you can explain how science would influence one's vote in favor of gay "marriage?"  So, we either have a large number of liberal non-scientists voting or a large number of liberal scientists voting?  How else to explain the lopsided results that don't mirror the larger general society?  Either way, this forum is tainted by politics while it's supposed to represent science.

Caledonian,

Because people have decided that marriage provides financial benefit without the requirement of bearing children seems like no argument for gay "marriage" or the devolution of the ideal of traditional marriage, does it?

Wayward Hammer,

I am not married.  I had children out of wedlock.  It was not a hard decision at the time because I was an apathetic liberal and cared nothing for marriage.  It has been only the passing of time and experience in life that has led me to see the value in traditional marriage.  Does that mean I should now marry someone that I lived with for 7 years, but never married...?  Perhaps...?  But things might be past a point that I have little control over.  

Are you upholding traditional marriage by implying an advocacy for gay "marriage" by way of your question?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:07   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 08 2006,23:45)
improvius,

I answer your question and in return get more questions?  Why not answer my questions, first?

If you see no intrinsic societal value in traditional marriage blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahbl

ahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah…

Wow. Here we are, 50 pages (that's 1,500 posts! ) later, and Thordady is still asking the same fatuous questions he was asking two months ago. You know, the ones that have been answered at least 20 times each?

Amazing.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:14   

EricMurphy,

Is there really any reason for you to enter this discussion?  

Your position is clear.  Gays want gay "marriage" and so they should get it and anyone who opposes them is a bigot.  Does that sum it up?  Is this based on science or your political ideology?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:17   

Quote
Is there really any reason for you to enter this discussion?


what discussion?

all i see is you making an idiot out of yourself, and everybody else essentially egging you on, or just plain poking you with a stick.

it's another delusion on your part to think what you continue here is a "discussion".

It far more resembles the argument sketch from Python.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:25   

Icky,

Can you tell us what the result of your poll is supposed to tell us?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:29   

Icky,

Your poll tells me that this pro-evolution forum attracts a disproportionate amount of political "liberals."  Why is that?  Is there something scientific about "liberalism" or is there something "liberal" about evolutionary science?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:31   

Quote
Can you tell us what the result of your poll is supposed to tell us?


No.

I can't tell you what it tells "us", because the answer is already obvious to "us", it's just not to you.

nothing i say would qualify as an answer that would satisfy you.

you've made that abundantly clear.

over 50+ pages of blithering idiocy and delusions.

it really doesn't matter.

I have no questions for you.  I don't care what you think, as you aren't rational.

get help.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:42   

Icky,

If your mindset is representative of the science community as a whole then is it any wonder why many look with skepticism upon the scientific community?

With all this delusion and idiocy you could at least provide one example of said delusion and idiocy using my own words in the spirit of science, no?

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:51   

nope. you're simply a waste of time.  completely and utterly.

why do you think i never bothered with you in your own "gay" thread?

you've been a waste of time for months now.

the only reason i bothered to respond at all was just out of sheer boredom, and for fun.

I also kinda had a very small hope you might actually consider getting treatment, but that was superfluous.

and with that, I no longer intend to respond to your nonsense until you say something worth responding to with more than ridicule, AND on a completely different subject than your apparent repressed sexuality.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:54   

Icky,

Then take yourself out of the thread you created.  I'm not bothered.  Or, you can continue to obfuscate and play online psychologist.  I'm not bothered by that either as it makes you look more and more like an ideologue and less and less scientific.

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,19:56   

ok, one, last note:

Quote
Then take yourself out of the thread you created


i didn't create this thread.

just more evidence of your delusion.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,20:00   

Icky,

It would probably be more a case of mistaken attribution, but then again you said your next to last post WAS your last post.  What would we call this...?  Lying?

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,20:40   

We are having a similar debate in Australia at the moment and I can't see what is the conservative's point. Gays currently live together, some have marriage ceremonies.

All this debate is about. is to allow these people (and/or goats, or whatever turns you on) have recognition that they have a significant other person (or goat) in a legal sense. This doesn't mean the government condones it. It allows them the same rights to insurance, superannuation, hospital visits. What's this got to do with sex? That will happen anyway whether the law passes or not. If Thordaddy doesn't like certain combinations to have sex with each other then outlaw the sex. If the act is not against the law why for FSMs sake not give people equal rights.

Michael

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,20:50   

bystander,

You argument boils down to this:

If gays want it then we must give it to them!  Of course, no one actually believes that you can stop there.  You must, as a matter of equality and fairness, give EVERYONE anything they want.  If you disagree then come join the rest of us "bigots" and our recalcitrant bunch.  

But since my validation is what they seek should it come about through undemocratic and tyrannical means?

  
bystander



Posts: 301
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,21:23   

What does what boil down to?

The way the current laws stand. Imagine two nice spinsters living together. No rumpy pumpy just two women who never got married to anybody else and a firm friends. Now, if one get's critically sick and into hospital the other might not get to see her. In fact her brothers and sisters who have not seen her for 40 years have more rights than these two ladies. If one dies then the superannuation (In Australia) goes to the family. Similarly things like insurance etc etc. This is what this is all about. A way that co-dependant people can have legal rights and recognition.

Thordaddy, you and the bigots are making this about sex. Gays already have sex and live together. Because you don't like what people do in their bedrooms (and on chandeliers) you want to deny them some basic human rights.

Anyway my last comment to you on this as I was talking to the reality based people.

Michael

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,21:35   

bystander,

I can't help if you swallow the pro-homosexual propaganda whole.  But I can try and enlighten you about the real issue at hand, but you're not interested in that either.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,22:39   

thordaddyyyyy! You're still here! Coherent as always, I see.
Still babbling about getting it on with your kid sister and marrying your pet rock?

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 08 2006,23:47   

Quote (thordaddy @ June 09 2006,02:35)
bystander,

I can't help if you swallow the pro-homosexual propaganda whole.  But I can try and enlighten you about the real issue at hand, but you're not interested in that either.

wasn't the whole, "we won't beat you to death with sticks and stones" thing a bit more "pro-homosexual propaganda" than a little bit of "ok u can promise to love each other for ever and ever in front of a judge, hippie, or dirty commie liberal christian woman preacher" thingie?

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,02:05   

TD
Can you define for us "traditional"?

Can you define for us "traditional marriage"?

Can you tell us how your definition of "traditional marriage" is actually "traditional"?

Can you tell us how gay marriage affects you definition of "traditional marriage"?

Can you fill us all in on why this is not a case of equal rights and equal protections under law?

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,02:13   

Eh, GCT, I think Thordaddy has been banned, so it's no use asking him anything....

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,02:13   

Thorydaddy,  your arguments are old and tired.  The same were trotted out as reasoning against interracial marriages.

It's nothing more than a scare tactic employed by the "people who know best".  It usually ends up with a comment like....."well, what if someone wants to marry a sheep"...or something really stupid.

Nothing has done more harm than to the sanctity of marriage than heterosexuals inability to keep their own marriage vows.

Not too mention, this entire topic is a ploy by the right to shore up the Fundie vote for this off year election.

One might think with all the issues like the war, prices of gas, health insurance...we would have other items to focus on.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,02:58   

Quote (Renier @ June 09 2006,07:13)
Eh, GCT, I think Thordaddy has been banned, so it's no use asking him anything....

Like it was really any use before he was banned.  Oh well.

Edit:  I just like to bang my head against the wall sometimes because it feels so good when I stop.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,03:29   

GCT, yes, I agree. Don't think anyone got through to T-diddy. As for that head banging thing, it's cool, as long as you have some good metal with it :)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,06:02   

I find it fascinating that on Planet Thordaddy, you're an 'ideologue' if you don't hate gays.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,06:12   

Just pretend I deleted this.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,11:11   

I'd like to congratulate stevestory on his clever atheistic/evilutionist/gay/church-burning/ebola-spreading  ploy that removed "Thordaddy" from the forum. At least for the moment. I tip my feathered hat to you, sir! FAAAA-BULOUS!


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,13:11   

aww, I just found this bit of scientific advice for Thorbuddy I wanted to impart before he left.

oh well, I guess he can still see the link...

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/stupid.wav

Should I post this for AFD too?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 09 2006,13:56   

Quote
I'd like to congratulate stevestory on his clever atheistic/evilutionist/gay/church-burning/ebola-spreading  ploy that removed "Thordaddy" from the forum. At least for the moment. I tip my feathered hat to you, sir! FAAAA-BULOUS!


I would say, "You're welcome", but I'm fighting for my life. Some pink ninjas just busted in the door. Where the Hell did they get those glittery nunchucks...

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 19 2006,04:01   

Just another report from the UK. I have yet to witness the collapse of our civilisation due to the legalisation of gay marriage. But just in case I am stocking up on tinned goods. When our society does collapse, you'll hear about it here first.

ps. In related news, the metamorphosis of the British public into alcoholic criminals due to the intorduction of much longer drinking hours in bars has also yet to occur. In fact alcohol related violence appears to have decreased. OT I know but the moral of the story is that freedom can actually be a good thing.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2006,11:18   

Quote (deadman_932 @ June 06 2006,22:25)
I voted for gay marriage because I plan on proposing to Thordaddy. Can't wait to see him in skimpy lingerie.  ;)

There is an image I would have preferred to keep out of my brain.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
  172 replies since June 06 2006,11:15 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]