Hey Morlock, why don't you give us a lecture about how the Jews are responsible for the downfall of western society? Maybe your arguments there are better-constructed than the ones you've presented in this thread. Somehow I doubt it, however.

~Steve

So your argument has been logically torn to shreds and you've admitted that you're motivated by a desire to "stick it to the liberals," and still you persist? Remarkable. Doublethink at its best

~Steve

Oooh, snap!

~Steve

JediLuke, I hope you haven't suddenly grown a brain and totally reversed your lameass posting style, because I'd definitely be missing out. I've stopped reading your posts.

Yay! Ignore reality and maybe it'll go away. Funny from the guy who talked so much crap about disproving arguments rather than blowing hot air.

Every single defense you try to give assumes your conclusion.

I don't quite follow how this applies.

Hahaha, I'm glad your poor comprehension isn't reserved for me. Wow.

~Steve

P.S. You really don't know how to make analogies.

EDIT:

Ah, I see, you don't want to actually discuss my pecadillos and pathologies, you just want to get in a quick little drive-by ad hominem.

Oh, poor you! You practically have it written on your forehead, you can't blame him.

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:47.

Morlock, I guess in some cases your persistence in the face of obvious defeat could be commendable. This isn't one of them.

Wishing more people were like Ray,

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:25.

I wasn't trying to say that heterosexual marriage/homosexual "marriage" were as opposite as war/hate friend/enemy. Analogies are imperfect, this is sort of written into the nature of analogies.

Except you're making that the basis of your argument. Your analogies are not imperfect, they're wrong.

Redefining marriage to include same sex unions essentially nullifies the current (and from time immemorial) nature of marriage.

Hm, no, it doesn't. You make it sound like allowing gays to marry will prevent straights from marrying. Samesex marriage doesn't "nullify" anything.

Should we just start legislating into effect every idea that isn't a bad one?

Allowing samesex marriage shouldn't require legislation just as allowing freedom for blacks shouldn't require legislation, but if unconstitutional legislation is enacted it must be repealed. Besides, you're the one who wants to amend the constitution.

As for not being good enough, well, I can say the same for the arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage."

No, you can't. They claim personal freedom, you claim "I see no reason for you to be married." You lose.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:28.

How are you still going with this? Give it up.

A relevant war analogy might read: Yes, war has existed since well before human history, but that doesn't mean we can't redefine war to include peace.

It isn't that homosexual marriage is WRONG, Steve, it's that it's an oxymoron. Marriage is a union between a woman and a man, always has been.

I'm sorry, what? Let me recap this for you.

YOU: Marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman because that's how it's always been.
ME: "Because that's how it's always been" is not a valid argument. One can't say war should be because there has always been war, or that slavery should be because there has always been slavery.

Where are you coming up with this "redefining" stuff? It's flawed in multiple ways, all of which have been laid out. It's tiresome to explain things over and over. First, it can't be legally redefined if it's not already legally defined. It's only defined by precedent and religion, both of which are invalid arguments.

"Always has been" doesn't work. Stop using it.

Second, your comparisons are all completely off-target. That you can't grasp that two men getting married is not the diametric opposite of a man and a woman getting married is puzzling. This can't be argued, it just isn't the case.
Redefining war to include peace is more akin to redefining marriage to include divorce. Redefining marriage to include samesex marriage has absolutely nothing to do with any of the analogies you're making.

Marriage has its roots in the act of bearing and raising children.

The origins of marriage are just as irrelevant in modern society as any number of things in the bible. Bearing and raising children is no longer important in the sense that it was in ancient times, when populations were small and larger numbers gave the advantages of larger armies and a larger workforce.

Your embarrasingly feeble intellect is the joke.

Honestly, how can you say that? You don't have a leg to stand on here. You're making yourself sound like an ass more and more with each post.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:30.

Heh, complicity, you're so much more cool and collected than I was. Good job. I've just heard enough of this crap of late to be incredibly fed up with it, especially when the argument is so poorly presented as it has been here.

~Steve

You just wasted a paragraph saying NOTHING.

On the contrary, I spent a paragraph calling your argument idiotic. Read more carefully please.

EXPLAIN, for God's sake. You just claiming it doesn't make it so!

I did explain, directly following my claim, as these things tend to be done.

Thanks for proving my point, that you aren't even reading the goddamn posts.

I'm reading your posts jackass, I apologize for allowing your lack of religion to slip my mind. I was merely discrediting a common defense of your viewpoint. The defense you offer is no better.

Marriage is not the union of a person and their "significant other, regardless of what 'significant other' means."

Well, try all of human history for a start.

Right, and there's your fallacy again. "All of human history" is in no way whatsoever a valid argument. War has existed for all of human history, but that doesn't make this a justification for going to war. The same could've been said for slavery before it was abolished. There also used to be laws preventing inter-racial marriage. Is that fundamentally wrong, too? Once again, where are you getting this "fundamental" idea? Your premise assumes your conclusion. You assume marriage to be defined as existing exclusively between a man and a woman when this is not the case outside of religious belief, but this is your desired outcome. Where did people throughout human history get the idea that gay marriage is wrong? Hm, I don't know, religion? You've got nowhere to go with this.

EDIT:

My problem is that I see no good reason to do so, and because I have this whole thing about redefining fundamental definitions.

Wow that's stupid. I'm sure it has everything to do with that and nothing to do with your admitted disgust for homosexuals. You're a fucking joke.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 01:40.

Homosexuals have PRECISELY the same rights to be married as heterosexuals. Their problem isn't with unequal rights, their problem is with the fact that the rights they have, which are IDENTICAL to heterosexual rights, just aren't enough for them.

And you've nicely returned to your original laughable assertion which I've now wasted a whole lot of time arguing with. Give me a fucking break! You honestly believe in that logic? That's utterly idiotic. I've heard a lot of people defend a lot of stupid positions, but that's really bad.

Gays want the right to marry their significant other, the one they love, just as straights can. The right to marry someone of the opposite sex has nothing to do with gays. Your argument is like saying that civil rights laws enacted in the 60s apply only to blacks, and that Asians looking for protection from discrimination are asking for "special treatment." I can't believe you're still sticking with that hopelessly obtuse argument. It reveals you as trying to use a technicality to force the acceptance of your prejudices.

Well, when you write what you mean, instead of writing something else while thinking to yourself what you mean, it helps a lot in communicating your ideas.

When you read what I'm saying instead of attempting to attack my credibility and spitting out a lot of canned bullshit, it helps a lot with your understanding. I have no time to be unnecessarily explicit, and again I apologize for over-estimating your capacity for reading comprehension.

Again, your argument is logically flawed. Your premise assumes your conclusion. You'd support an amendment preventing same-sex marriage because it would protect the definition of marriage. Where is marriage defined? In the constitution? Not yet, and hopefully never. In your religion? Yes, and neither you nor our fuck-up of a President have any right to use the constitution to enforce your religious beliefs on anyone.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 01:17.

Wow, what the fuck? Forgive me for assuming you'd have the ability to connect my (not all that subtle or indirect) comments to the issue at hand. I'm addressing the entire shit-for-brains basis of your position, that gays should not have the right to be married the way straights do. How you that could fail to register with you is beyond me.

It seems reasonable to assume based on your views, and correct me if this is erroneous, that you'd support a constitutional amendment to protect what you see as the "sanctity of marriage." The (incredibly obvious) point was that you've let your distaste for the homosexual lifestyle obscure your reasoning in a very black and white issue of equal rights under the law. This would be like me allowing my emotional reaction to a murderer obscure my reasoning and condemning him to cruel and unusual punishment.

Trying to dismiss my entirely pertinent arguments as irrelevant isn't helping your position any. Now, run along and re-read my post with that in mind and maybe you'll understand.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 00:55.

You are operating under the mistaken notion that emotions are rational.

Emotions are not rational, but a part of civilization is tempering one's emotions with reason, something you seem unable to do.

What child murderers do disgusts me profoundly, and I don't get to that state of disgust through some highly-reasoned logical process like some Vulcan.

Child murderers disgust me as well, but that doesn't mean I believe that the government should punish them with prolonged torture, though that may be my gut reaction. Again, tempering emotion with reason. I hope you're taking notes.

Chilled monkey brains as dessert disgusts me, but I don't go through some highly-reasoned logical process to reach that disgust - my stomach tells me.

So should chilled monkey brain dessert be illegal? Should we find the people who eat chilled monkey brains and put them in jail? Should we hate them and discriminate against them, or consider them lesser individuals?

In your righteous crusade to conform to your revealed religion (leftism), you have traded in tolerance for the way I was born for tolerance for the way homosexuals were born.

Ha, nice try. If the viewpoint of tolerance and compassion aligns with leftism in this case, so be it. Leftism is hardly my religion. Tolerance for the way you were born? Homosexuality is not chosen, bigotry is. If you were raised to be bigoted I may have some more compassion for your plight, but your inability to overcome that obstacle is still no one's fault but yours.

It's people like you who rushed off to the crusades in a holy fervor, frothing at the mouth to convert the heathen for the good of the world.

Wow, what an utterly baseless statement. You're reaching now.

You are hopelessly naive, or very odd, if you can't imagine any sexual behavior between consenting adults that could disgust you (people crapping in one another's mouths don't disgust you? people who mutilate themselves don't disgust you?)

Way to miss my point. Watching or participating in such acts would very likely disgust me, but I am in no way bothered by the idea that some people get off like that, nor do I seek to have the government prevent people from doing such things.

Some people just can't visualize or think abstractly.

I know, but maybe with some hard work, you can get there. We all believe in you.

~Steve

Your comments don't faze me in the least - I have far more productive things to do than dissect your posts. I felt no need to disprove your arguments; they are plainly incorrect to any rational third party who might come across them, and an attempt to make the truth plain to any irrational third pary would be just as useless as trying to do so for you. At least it still seems the majority of posters around here have a functioning brain and a sense of compassion.

I'll refer you here, however, for a more thorough refutation of your viewpoint than I have the time or inclination to provide:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1522324&lastnode_id=1525221

EDIT: I will show your flawed thinking here though:

Do you honestly feel that there is NO sexual behavior that goes on between consenting adults that could possibly elicit disgust from you?

Yes, that is how I feel. I wouldn't pay to see it; if someone asked me to participate, I'd probably refuse; if someone forced me to watch or participate, they would be wrong for doing so. However, the *idea* that there are people out there doing it doesn't offend me in the least, as it obviously does you. Hence the labelling of your disgust as irrational and indicative of an underlying psychological issue.

I always attempt to avoid personal attacks, but I really feel no compulsion to hide my utter contempt for you in light of the views you've expressed.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 00:02.

Wow... wow. This is clearly not an argument worth getting into. But Morlock, I've seen people argue like you before, and it's completely astounding. Your logic is so obviously flawed and your viewpoint so clearly prejudiced and hateful, and yet you're able to ignore this and continue being totally smug and comfortable with your position. Your claim that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone because they're free to marry someone of the opposite sex is laughable. Please, don't waste anyone's time with such poorly thought-out assertions. It's amazing that someone can have the cognitive capacity to construct a long and structured argument and yet lack the ability to see how utterly devoid of reason their argument is.

How would homosexuals like heterosexuals (all of them) parading around screaming about how they were the majority, the VAST majority, how great it was to be straight, and how homosexuals couldn't do anything about it? Wouldn't that be somewhat insufferably obnoxious?

That really betrays your twisted view of homosexuality. You think gays care that most people are straight? You act as though they're campaigning for everybody to switch sides. You view gay pride parades as rubbing homosexuality in your face, being obnoxious about the fact that there are gay people and you're helpless to change it - a fact that obviously makes you very uncomfortable. It's completely logical to imagine that your discomfort could arise from your own latent homosexual desires or from some kind of traumatic experience or childhood sexual repression, and the fact that you would dismiss such an idea out of hand is another example of your total failure of logical reasoning. In any case, you really should recognize that your feeling of repugnance for homosexuals is a problem within yourself, not the rest of the world. Normal, clear-headed people experience no such feelings and as a result do not develop your intense prejudices.

Gays could not care less about your own choice of sexual orientation. I've never heard about a gay guy beating people up because they were straight. Your irrationally hostile feelings towards gays are apparent in everything you say and do much to compromise your position; again, not that your poor reasoning hadn't done that already.

Pat yourself on the back pal, you're what's wrong with the world.

~Steve

EDIT: Ha, I was just looking through your post history (all of 12 posts, 2 of which had to do with computer games) and noticed that you felt the need to reply to a completely dead and buried thread, twice in a row mind you, just in an attempt to "discredit" my reference to psychoanalysis? Wow, you really think you've got it all figured out, don't you? My friend, you're an idiot. You're only demonstrating insufficient understanding and poor reasoning skills along with providing further examples of your smug self-righteousness and inflated sense of self-worth.


This comment was edited on Apr 10, 21:54.

Appalling. The day this country amends the constitution to enforce the views of the religious right is the day I'll start looking to move out.

~Steve

P.S. Vote Kerry

Man aren't you a n00b to gaming.

He was obviously being sarcastic.

~Steve

I played this for awhile last night and I have to say I can't imagine the Xbox version is better. It was really fun, no problems at all. I'm gonna have to get the full version just for MP.

~Steve

Like I said, why would I want to spend my hard-earned money on a game that I don't know if I'll like or not? Do you buy a car without test-driving it? Do you buy a movie without ever watching it in theaters or renting it? Do you buy a CD without listening to the radio to see if you'll like it? No, of course not.

Uh, you know there were 2 demos, right? I don't care if you want to download games and I'm not gonna lecture about it, but people come up with some stupid excuses.

~Steve

The majority wants it, I think you should either shut up and accept it, or go to a country that is not made up of a majority of believers, if it bothers you so much.

That's a very flawed position. Just because the majority (and I haven't seen the results of any surveys about what the majority wants, maybe you can link to some) wants something doesn't mean it's constitutional or the right thing to do. If most of the country were in favor of slavery, as was once the case, does that make it okay? Stop bitching abolitionists, everyone but you wants it, it's already there, deal with it!

I'm not trying to compare the miniscule issue of the phrase to the ugliness of slavery, just trying to point out the weakness in your argument.

To make another example, the majority of people aren't disabled, but businesses are still required by law to have disabled access. The majority might be fine the way they are and they may not want to spend money putting in ramps, etc., but they have to. Democracy doesn't mean making the minority conform to the majority. And our government is not a pure democracy at all.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over whether or not the phrase is removed; I couldn't care less, really. But that doesn't mean it isn't easy to see which side is correct. We're glad that you and God are chummy, but keep it to yourself, thanks. Freedom of religion is one of this nation's principles, and that includes freedom from religion.

~Steve

This comment was edited on Mar 25, 19:34.

You obviously haven't read up on the game at all, so it doesn't seem like you're in any position to call BULLSHIT. There are plenty of previews online that describe it. And whaddya know, the demo is coming tomorrow, so I guess we'll find out.

~Steve