Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I knew it was going to happen, but...Follow

#152 Feb 29 2012 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#153 Feb 29 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
So no one can provide a primary source which proves some other alternative reason for why we created those marriage laws?

Just checking.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#154 Feb 29 2012 at 8:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#155 Feb 29 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#156 Feb 29 2012 at 9:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
So... Still no primary source? So you must be wrong and I must be right! Hurray!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#157 Feb 29 2012 at 9:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This would cut more if no one had read the dozen-plus threads where this was already hashed out.

I've no doubt that you'll just say none of that ever counted, etc. I wish you well in that because I've no interest in making it thirteen-plus. Whatever gets you though the day is fine by me Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#158 Feb 29 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Its all good...its his opinion. Smiley: lol
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#159 Mar 01 2012 at 8:46 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,667 posts
Were we supposed to forget that he was the one asked for that source with the page change?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#160 Mar 01 2012 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so? Ha, ha, you're cute. My only argument is that these laws weren't passed for the reasons you suggested, and the lack of primary sources stating contrary is proof enough for me. Because all my argument is doing is invalidating your claim, not saying WHY the laws were passed.

If I cared about talking to you more, I might be willing. But I know you'd just ignore them, like in every other thread.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#161 Mar 02 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#162 Mar 03 2012 at 9:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,223 posts
Soooo... if Santorum is elected, he wants to nullify 131,000 legal and binding marriages on the basis that Federal law trumps states' rights in defining marriage.

What a true conservative he is.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#163 Mar 03 2012 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
I wonder what other states rights he's willing to overturn...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#164 Mar 03 2012 at 1:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
You refuse to offer a primary source for your argument, but demand that we do so?


Almost made me fall out of my chair with that one. I hope for your sake you were being ironic, because otherwise I can only assume you need help dressing yourself and remembering to breathe.


You can try and attack me all you want, but it's actually basic logic. You are committing two well-known logical fallacy. Demanding an alternate argument is not a valid form of argument. I'm in no way required to offer you an explanation, because whether or not I have a correct explanation in no way validates your own.

It's, frankly, pathetic that you have so much difficulty admitting that you are doing this. You're trying to deflect the critique of your own argument onto me, but I'm not interested in playing your game. Give me reason to accept your premises, and I might. As it stands, you have yet to give me ANY reason to do so, but expect me to use an argument from final consequence (another logical fallacy) to do so.

Whether or not I can prove a different theory quite literally makes no difference with regards to whether yours is right. This also happens to be the reason why even the most-trusted scientific beliefs are still considered theories--just because we don't have a difference answer doesn't mean our own is right. When we don't have enough proof to suspect accuracy, we consider it a hypothesis.

You, gbaji, have made a hypothesis. And you have yet to give us any proof for it. I see absolutely no reason to accept your argument.

It's sad, gbaji. It's really, really sad. Maybe if you'd stop foaming at the mouth and actually take the time to make a reasonable defense, based off of primary information we have reason to trust, then it would actually be possible to engage in discourse with you. As it stands, you offer no more intellectual stimulation than cleverbot does.

[EDIT]

I know this as the monkey-in-the-attic fallacy, but that's not its real name. I just remember it that way because its how I learned it.

You are sitting on the couch when you hear a noise upstairs. Your friend says its a monkey in the attic. You disagree, and he demands a different explanation (but you don't have one), leading him to jubilantly declare he's right.

That's what you have done, gbaji. You've told us there's a monkey in the attic, and then handed us an opinion piece as evidence for it.

Pardon me if I don't believe you.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2012 2:05pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#165 Mar 03 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why not apply the same requirement to yourself? Provide a primary source which explains why we created our marriage laws and use that source to prove that I'm wrong.

I'll ask again: Can you provide a primary source which can determine without question the purpose for which our marriage laws were created? And I'm not talking about *what* they do, but *why* they do it. Can you do this? If not, then why are you demanding that I do.



I'll play your stupid little game on one condition. Instead of constantly referring to them as "marriage laws", name a specific code that you'd like to debate. By article number, not friendly name.

And just to get off to a running start, let's use DOMA as an example.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?r104:@OR+(+@1(H.R.+3396)++@1(H.+R.+3396)++)

Every single reference on that page is a primary source, but since you're clearly incapable of finding this **** on your own, let's present the following

Mr. President, during my years in the Senate I have been privileged on many occasions to work with a substantial number of ministers whose Washington churches today are referred to as `African-American.'

These fine ministers have almost unanimously supported efforts by myself and Joe Gibbs and others to restore school prayer to the Nation's classrooms. They are, in the main, opposed to abortion. In fact, I do not recall even one of these ministers ever describing himself or herself as `pro-choice.' But that perhaps is neither here nor there in terms of what I am here this evening to speak about.

The day before the Senate adjourned for the August recess, I ran into one of these fine ministers over in the Russell Building. His church is Baptist. He has a booming, cheerful voice. And when I heard that voice, I knew who it was. He was saying, `Are you going home tomorrow?' And I told him I thought I was since the Senate probably would recess for the month of August.

I asked him, Mr. President, if he had a message for the folks back home. And he said, `I sure do. Tell them that God created Adam and Eve--not Adam and Steve.'

Some may chuckle at this good-natured minister's humor. But he meant exactly what he was saying. In fact, it was a sort of sermonette. The truth is, he was hitting the nail on the head, if you want to use that cliche, or telling it like it is. However one may choose to describe this minister's getting down to the nitty-gritty, it was no mere cliche, Mr. President. There could not have been, as a matter of fact, a better way to begin this debate in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act, which is H.R. 3396 . The formal debate will begin tomorrow morning in this Chamber, the U.S. Senate.

Now then, let there be no mistake about it, this bill in no way, to any degree, is the kind of legislation which homosexual and ******* leaders have disdainfully described as a, to use their words, `hate-driven bill.'

In fact, it is precisely the critics of H.R. 3396 who are demanding that homosexuality be considered as just another lifestyle--these are the people who seek to force their agenda upon the vast majority of Americans who reject the homosexual lifestyle.

Indeed, Mr. President, the pending bill--the Defense of Marriage Act--will safeguard the sacred institutions of marriage and the family from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process.

Isn't it disheartening, Mr. President, that Congress must clarify the traditional definition of marriage? But inch by inch, little by little, the homosexual lobby has chipped away at the moral stamina of some of America's courts and some legislators, in order to create the shaky ground that exists today that prompts this legislation being the subject of debate tomorrow morning in the U.S. Senate.

Just think, the prospect of a sovereign State's being compelled to recognize same-*** marriages sanctioned in another State is incredibly stark. If Hawaii's supreme court legalizes same-*** marriages in Hawaii, does the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution compel the other 49 States to recognize the new marriage law within their jurisdictions? I say no.

Such a suggestion, Mr. President, is a cockeyed interpretation of the Constitution; and this is one of so many times that I have wished the late, great Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., were here to cut it down to size. Homosexuals and lesbians boast that they are close to realizing their goal--legitimizing their behavior.

Mr. President, Bill Bennett has championed the cause of preserving America's culture; he contends that we are already reaping the consequences of the devaluation of marriage. And he warns that `it is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a radical, untested, and inherently flawed social experiment on an institution that is the keystone and the arch of civilization.'

Bill Bennett is everlastingly right, and I believe the American people in the majority understand that the Defense of Marriage Act is vitally important. It will establish a simple, clear Federal definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman, and it will exempt sovereign States from being compelled by a half-baked interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to recognize same-*** marriages wrongfully legalized in another State.

If the Senate, tomorrow, makes the mistake of approving the Employment Nondiscrimination Act proposed by the Senator from Massachusetts, it will pave the way for liberal judges to threaten the business policies of countless American employers, and, in the long run, put in question the legality of the Defense of Marriage Act. The homosexual lobby knows this and that is why there is such a clamor favoring adoption of the Kennedy bill.

Mr. President, at the heart of this debate is the moral and spiritual survival of this Nation. Alexis de Tocqueville said a century and a half ago that America had grown great because America was good. Mr. de Tocqueville also warned that if America made the mistake of ceasing to be good, America would cease to be great.

So, we must confront the question posed long ago: `Quo Vadis, America?'

The Senate is about to answer that question. We will decide whither goeth America. It is solely up to us.


Not once in that little tirade does one find ANY mention of ANY of your precious little federal benefits that you keep arguing are the actual base for the current definition of, and protection of said definition, of marriage. No, this law was, is, and continues to be absolutely and unequivocally about defending America "from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process."

In short, you're a ******* idiot.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#166 Mar 03 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#167 Mar 03 2012 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"


There's no more accurate source than a speaker on the floor of the senate at the time the legislation is created. Offering to do so and actually doing so are different things.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#168 Mar 03 2012 at 5:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Get ready for this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#169 Mar 03 2012 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
My favorite part is when he takes the incredibly straight-forward and blunt assertion that marriage is not just a civil contract, but a fundamental right, and claims it says that... marriage is a civil contract, not a fundamental right.

My second favorite part is where he claims that most people only marry because they were forced to.

My third favorite part is where Brown calls him out for how stupid the last part was.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#170 Mar 03 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Hasn't gbaji also mentioned that one reason he's against *** marriage is that all those extra marriages would result in him paying higher taxes to fund all those magical unicorn benefits? But then, what if all those *** people did what he, Alma and others say they should do - marry someone of the opposite ***. Wouldn't that result in the same amount of extra marriages, making his taxes higher still?
#171Almalieque, Posted: Mar 03 2012 at 11:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not supporting his claim, but that's pretty much what politics do. At least that's what I've noticed with my limited experience. Politicians do and say things to make the people think that they are supporting cause x, but it's really for a completely different cause.
#172 Mar 04 2012 at 12:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
You're wasting your time. I once offered to select single laws and investigate them but Gbaji retreated into "Well, even though they didn't say it, the REAL reason was children!"


Not supporting his claim, but that's pretty much what politics do. At least that's what I've noticed with my limited experience. Politicians do and say things to make the people think that they are supporting cause x, but it's really for a completely different cause.

Yes, gbaji would make a perfect Generic Republican Candidate. It's been brought up before.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#173Almalieque, Posted: Mar 04 2012 at 2:13 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This belief that Republicans and Democrats BEHAVE differently is false. They both have their own different beliefs, but when placed in office, they behave the same way.
#174 Mar 04 2012 at 2:25 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
A president can only act according to the support he can hope to win. Frankly, there isn't a huge difference between Bush and Obama. There are certainly differences, and they are certainly differences I care about, but Republicans who think that Bush had a good economic plan, but bash Obama's, are just idiots.

But Bush and Clinton were definitely very different presidents.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#175 Mar 04 2012 at 2:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
A president can only act according to the support he can hope to win. Frankly, there isn't a huge difference between Bush and Obama. There are certainly differences, and they are certainly differences I care about, but Republicans who think that Bush had a good economic plan, but bash Obama's, are just idiots.

But Bush and Clinton were definitely very different presidents.


I don't even know what to say to this.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#176 Mar 04 2012 at 11:29 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I was more or less just complaining about the fact that we keep getting forced into moderate presidents because our system is so polarized.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 62 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (62)