Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/10/06 08:52 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: Those are minor and can also be overcome with the proper protection.

The chances of incest producing a defective baby are minor too.

In this case it's the legal denial of benefits based purely on discrimination. They have no right to do that if homosexuals are tax payers.

Yes they do. One vote is one vote. It's the same way that we can decide who gets medicare and medicaid, and welfare. Benefits are just that. Benefits. You have no legal right to benefits.

Which is irrelevant if it's none of their business. Things like this should be decided on the most logically sound argument, not how many idiots went to the ballot box.

I agree. Please stop voting. Most of your opinions are idiotic.
If they pay for it, it is very much their business. Stop saying otherwise.

Because there's less of them, perchance? You're not very good at understand the concept of a minority, are you?

Yes, I am. Which is exactly why they got over ruled. You don't get the idea of one person one vote do you?

Plus, a good part of the gay community doesn't care about marriage. Quite a few admitted here in STL after the vote on DOMA, that they didn't care enough to vote. If they won't even go out and support it themselves, why should we?

Which are you talking about? The slippery slope, or something else equally ridiculous?

Doesn't fall under slippery slope, stupid.
HA alliteration.

What has that got to do with gay marriage?

You seem to think we should look to Canada for guidance yes?

Not as many as the U.S., no, especially considerring it's a whole load of different cultures and countries, and the U.S. is just one, I think we're doing just fine in comparison.

Yea, all those riots in France. That's just great. The EU preparing for a hit to France's economy. Just great. England's higher crime rate. Beautiful

And if you really think America only has one culture, you don't understand anything about our country.

Grow up isn't an argument. It's a pathetic attempt to challenge the maturity of someone who disagrees with you.

Yea, you're not mature. And it's not abuse. And?

Yeah, and they're nowhere near the same thing. So why are you even raising this point?

They're exactly the same thing. Two people who want to get married (or three in the case of polygamy) and we tell them no.

What the fuck do I even have to prove wrong? All you've said is "The Majority is always right. Canada sucks". You don't even have an argument to begin with.

So, you're too stupid to understand it?
My point is the same as it was before: marriage is simply the societal recognization of a union. A thumbs up, saying "we approve" if you will. You're a moron if you dont think society has the right to decide what they give a thumbs up to.

But hey, it's all gravy. Republicans came up with civil unions to solve the problem.

There's a difference between personal attacks and appeal to ridicule. Appeal to Ridicule online normally takes the form of impersonations of the other person.

And?

I'm sorry, what conflicts with what I've said there, exactly? Most of the people I call "neo-cons" do often believe the same. Not all, but I'll call them that since they have the same views as Neo-cons on other issues. I don't always mean it literally. Since it's a political definition this is one area where Wikipedia is not going to be the most reliable source, as it has to try and remain unbiased. It's pretty hard to say some of the things most of us believe neo-cons are without sounding biased.

OH OK. So Neo-con means whatever you want it to. Jesus you're dumb.

Actually, the main reason I coin the term "Neo-con" is because they are conservative in the sense of being socially conservative, but not fiscally conservative, as I said earlier. It's a new type of conservative, in contrast to the old one.

Neo-cons are generally socially liberal.

I'm pretty sure there's a logical fallacy for this too. You're trying to frustrate me and elevate your argument above mine as th victor despite the fact that nothing in this "debate" has been near resolved, or "rub salt in the wound" as you say, another phrase for being an asshole troll. It worked on a small level, it made me angry so I felt it necessary to point out your pathetic attempt at trolling, and now I feel much better, thanks.

And I am frustrating you. Troll. There's another one you love alot.

Bottom line: you have yet to argue any of my points. And yes they are points.

So let me recap your rules just to make sure I've got them down:
Gay people deserve marriage privleges because you say so, but incest couples don't...because you say so.
Calling people asshole is OK, but typing in an argument that one's opponent has used in the past is not.
Definitions mean whatever you want them to, whether or not that's the actual well established meaning.
I can prove you wrong, because it's all in your head.
People only have a right to vote when they agree with you.
Wikipedia is a fine source when it agrees with you, and a pitiful source when it doesn't.
Gay people have a right to tell straight people how to spend their money, but not vice versa.
Anything that you don't understand is logical fallacy.
When you can't argue me, the matter has been "repeatedly shot down".
Using a common standard for everything is now a "slippery slope" argument.
When you throw forward a stupid argument and I shoot it down, THAT is the entire point that I've argued for two pages.
When I catch you being wrong, you weren't "being literal".
Women have no right to defend themselves against rape, but gay marriage is an inalienable right (other post).

Did I get all of them? Or are there any other stupid rules that you've made up that I need to know about?

:Gay people deserve marriage privleges because you say so, but incest couples don't...because you say so.

I never even really commented on that, just pointed out that they're not the same thing. My opinion on one thing doesn't have to affect my opinion on one vaguely similiar thing.

And there's actually a reasonably high chance of defective offspring. I don't think they need marriage is necessary for them since they're already a "family unit". If it doesn't hurt anyone else though, I don't see a problem with it. With polygamy and incest though, I can see more of a direct line to abuse benefits.

Calling people asshole is OK, but typing in an argument that one's opponent has used in the past is not.

Yes, pretty much. Providing the argument used in the past was debunked, which it was. Now I'm not even sure which argument you're referring to. If *you* have points, why are you going over mine and not yours?

Definitions mean whatever you want them to, whether or not that's the actual well established meaning.

Words can mean different things to different people. It's not quite the same as mistaking mall kids for "goths", for the example, as there is more than one possible idea of what a "new conservative" is.

I can prove you wrong, because it's all in your head

What?

People only have a right to vote when they agree with you.

I absolutely despise this "Only when they agree with you" bullshit. It completely belittles the idea of genuine discrimination.

When you can't argue me, the matter has been "repeatedly shot down".

Because it has. I don't want to deal with the same points over and over and over. Most anti-gay marriage points have been shot down, then another idiot comes along and makes the same points. That's how it goes.

Using a common standard for everything is now a "slippery slope" argument.

Saying that two unrelated things are linked is non sequitor in a form that leads to use of slippery slope when you are looking for justification of judging one by the other.

When I catch you being wrong, you weren't "being literal".

Half of these things are nitpicking on minor points or terminology that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. Could you actually argue your damn argument, please?

Women have no right to defend themselves against rape, but gay marriage is an inalienable right (other post).

Yeah, because that's what I said. Strawmen are awesome.

At 4/10/06 09:28 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: And there's actually a reasonably high chance of defective offspring. I don't think they need marriage is necessary for them since they're already a "family unit". If it doesn't hurt anyone else though, I don't see a problem with it. With polygamy and incest though, I can see more of a direct line to abuse benefits.

There's actually a very small chance of defect. In the first and secong generations the chance is higher than regular couples, but still pretty small. And there is chance to abuse benefits period.

Yes, pretty much. Providing the argument used in the past was debunked, which it was. Now I'm not even sure which argument you're referring to. If *you* have points, why are you going over mine and not yours?

My arguement was far from debunked. Try again.

I absolutely despise this "Only when they agree with you" bullshit. It completely belittles the idea of genuine discrimination.

Yup, it does. That's why I pointed it out.

Because it has. I don't want to deal with the same points over and over and over. Most anti-gay marriage points have been shot down, then another idiot comes along and makes the same points. That's how it goes.

I understand, it's hard being confronted with things that you are unable to counter.

Saying that two unrelated things are linked is non sequitor in a form that leads to use of slippery slope when you are looking for justification of judging one by the other.

Both things are marriage. Both things are two people supposedly in love who want to get married. Saying that they are unrelated is to say that abortion and partial birth abortion are unrelated.

Women have no right to defend themselves against rape, but gay marriage is an inalienable right (other post).

Yeah, because that's what I said.

Hmmm. You still refuse to offer any reason why we should legalize it, besides that you think so (and it is in your court to argue it). You still make some ridiculous distinction between gay marriage and incestuous or polygamy relationships without any reasoning. And they are on the same level. You can argue all you want, but it's the same thing. And your entire little tirade hinges on: you have no right to say no. And I clearly do, as does society. Somehow gay people should be the only ones allowed to vote, as should their supporters by your logic. And somehow no one but gays has the right to assert an opinion on how their tax dollars are spent.

A couple new things I noticed about your rules:
Temper tantrums are valid debate.
When you make what you claim is a factual statement, you are under no obligation to prove it.
If you say something and it is later used against you, you never said it.
If you are questioned, it doesn't matter the way things are or aren't, all that matters is what you say.

Yea, you're absolutely boring to debate. I'm done with you. Have a nice day.

There's actually a very small chance of defect. In the first and secong generations the chance is higher than regular couples, but still pretty small. And there is chance to abuse benefits period.

Regardless, I don't really care as I don't particularily have an opinion on incestual couples. If someone wants to do it, I won't stop them; it's going to happen anyway, but it would be safer if they didn't have children.

My arguement was far from debunked. Try again.

Which one are we even talking about now? I talked about specific points but that was pages ago and I'm not sure which ones you think I meant. You're the one claiming "Victory" for some retarded reason.

I understand, it's hard being confronted with things that you are unable to counter.

Shut the fuck up, seriously. I'm absolutely sick and tired of your ridiculous tactics which involve nothing more than trying to frustrate your opponent and acting like a completely skin and bones argument that was kicked in the groin is actually a good one I don't agree with. They have been counterred 10000s of times before, and you fucking know it.

Both things are marriage. Both things are two people supposedly in love who want to get married. Saying that they are unrelated is to say that abortion and partial birth abortion are unrelated.

But both things are coming from two totally different starting points, and ending up in the same position. You can't judge the initial idea by the final product, since you're meant to be judging the initial idea to see if the final product is a good idea. Now this attitude *is* one that could lead to a genuine slippery slope effect, since you're thinking along those lines. Just because things are related by a common goal does not mean they are anywhere near the same thing to begin with.

Hmmm. You still refuse to offer any reason why we should legalize it, besides that you think so (and it is in your court to argue it).

I have. You just refuse to admit them because you lack the intelligence to argue actual points.

I'll go over the basics; gay people pay taxes like anyone else, so taking their money and using it for straight marriage, and not allowing them to marry, is completely unfair, majority ruling is bullshit as the "majority" when it comes to judging minorities usually represents the opinions of a few morons that overblew to a ridiculous agree, and the U.S. is MEANT to protect minorities, it's in your fucking declaration of independance for crap's sack, disallowing gay marriage is insisting that straight relationships, even infertile ones, are somehow far superior to homosexual ones, and gay people cannot recieve the benefits they should have without it, even under many models for "Civil Unions", which is endlessly patronising.

A couple new things I noticed about your rules:

Temper tantrums are valid debate.
When you make what you claim is a factual statement, you are under no obligation to prove it.
If you say something and it is later used against you, you never said it.
If you are questioned, it doesn't matter the way things are or aren't, all that matters is what you say.

You still make some ridiculous distinction between gay marriage and incestuous or polygamy relationships without any reasoning.

Yeah, them not being the same thing isn't any reasoning at all. The fact that 90% of your argument is based on something ridiculous means I shouldn't even be debating you to begin with.

This explains why Polygamy isn't the same - http://jonrowe.blogs..tic-fallacy-gay.html

Also, this conversation is pretty similiar to ours -
http://www.basetree...w-incest-idiocy.html

Also, isn't incest illegal? And Soddomy legal? Same for Paedophilia. So, you have no ground to stand on. Kindly fuck off and stop using these points now.

This also beats the shit out of your incest "argument":

"Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn't that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn't they have 'slid' towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for over many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It's a classic scare tactic - making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers."

And what the fuck? Replace temper tantrums with "Purposely trying to frustrate people into temper tantrums" and you have your side.

I am going to stop arguing with you, not because I "disagree" with you, but because anyone who goes to such lengths to frustrate their opponent and hardly bothers to argue a point at all isn't worth arguing with. Everything in this post was questioning my argument with no backing and purposely trying to frustrate. You're not right, you're not a good debater, but you keep acting like your idiotic ideals are on the same level as someone who has a logical basis as them. They're not. Now shut up because I'm not going to argue with you anymore. I have no doubt your reply will be full of "Oh you don't want to argue because you don't AGREE with me and I WON the argument!" and other such shit. You won crap all. I'm just sick of you constantly trying to "win" by frustrating me.

Nearly every "point" is a fallacy, and you can only argue from this point out by saying I've "lost" and can't debate you back when it's blatant to anyone with a shred of sense that I'm just sick of you and see this as going nowhere. Obviously the purpose of argument isn't to convince the other person, but to provide a resource for bystanders to observe, but it's hardly giving them much now. All you can do is attack someone for stupid reasons and nitpick useless crap. Your sick determination to stand up for state-enforced discrimination is admirable though, if you ever want to become a comic book villian.

Oh, and I refuse to believe you're not a "fear monger" after you named this topic so ridiculously. Some shitty rap lyrics are a "Potential Columbine". So I'm pretty sure that paragraph I posted is 100% right. Sick of idiots trying to rile other idiots and themselves up, and sick of arguing with you.

At 4/10/06 02:32 AM, WolvenBear wrote: No other legal contract is available to one set of people and completely illegal to another set. The current laws are patently unconstitutional, and because of that very factor, the people do NOT have the right to illegalize ANY contract between two consenting parties.

Though I agree, you are dead wrong. There is a third party: the government/people. They are giving benefits and therefore have a say.

Of course they do. However, they do NOT have the right to use gender as a mediating condition. They are allowed to decide what benefits are given, for how long, and to establish the requirements of the legal contract. Due to the equal protection clause, they can NOT use gender, gender preference, or number of people entering the contract as bases for nullification.

Every legal contract two or more heterosexual people can enter, two homosexual people can enter. Except this one. Every set of government benefits allowed a heterosexual person is allowed a homosexual person. Except this one.

Government/people does NOT get to pick and choose who gets benefits within established limits. And limits due to sexuality or the gender of those within the contract are NOT allowed.

What harm? No credible study has shown gay marriage or gay relationships to be harmful in ANY way.

Anal sex. It is not good for the body. Just as incestual sex is bad for the child.

You said yourself that incestual sex is a minor extra risk. Same here. All of this can be avoided with lubrication. Nevermind that this has little to do with gay marriage anyway, considering half of them aren't especially inclined to anal sex (well, any more than your normal perv :P), read: lesbians, and anal sex is HARDLY (lolpun) limited to male gay couples.

Oh, I have a stance. But, I believe it is up to the people to decide "Hey, we like this." Seeing as marriage is the societal recognition of a union (and bestowing of rights upon). Kinda like marijuana.

Funny, I see marijuana's illegalization in the same light. Not only is it logically ridiculous, it's fiscally irresponsible. Imagine the booming businesses like tobacco and alcohol that would be taxed out their ears, provide millions of jobs, and provide a product that many people want, that is no more harmful for them than what is already legal and widely available.

However, there the parallels end. The legalization of marijuana is not the legalization of a legal contract. There is no discrimination on the type of people allowed it. It's not legal for some people, yet illegal for others. Aside from medical marijuana, which is a clusterfuck of a situation anyway, and we really shouldn't get into it since we're already so far off our original track.

Good post, mainly for the bit on marijuana nice to see you can keep your cool better than I can(coincidence?).

When you vote on issues like that, you're allowing the people to discriminate, no more, no less, and that becomes state enforced discrimination when passed. People think too little of that kind of thing. It is serious that someone can have their rights kept from them for no logical reason.

At 4/11/06 08:27 PM, Ravariel wrote:

which is a clusterfuck of a situation anyway

Are you a United States Marine, Ravie?

Good post, mainly for the bit on marijuana nice to see you can keep your cool better than I can(coincidence?).

He's a colleague of mine, attending the 21st most prestigious university in the world (underrated again.....). Plus, after years and years of discussion sections, we're kinda experts at this whole "debate" thing......

Wolverines bitches! OOORAH! :-)

At 4/4/06 05:10 PM, Begoner wrote: Wow, how can the ACLU even try to defend such a clear-cut case? And why was the student let off with an expulsion instead of being jailed? I think that everybody who plays first-person shooters or any similar type of game should be arrested -- I mean, the obviously have some sort of bloodlust, so they are a potential danger to society and might be involved in the next Columbine. After all, there are so many school shootings each year, and not enough is done to prevent them.

obviously have some sort of bloodlust? what the hell are you talking about? listen, i've been playing first person shooters since i was around 8 years old, and i am NOT a violent person...

At 4/11/06 10:47 PM, shiro183 wrote: obviously have some sort of bloodlust? what the hell are you talking about? listen, i've been playing first person shooters since i was around 8 years old, and i am NOT a violent person...

Video games may not have made you a violent person, but it does seem they may have destroyed your ability to detect basic sarcasm...