Same-Sex Marriage: Yea or Nay? And Explain!

[Grave_n_idle]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

[Grave_n_idle]

I don't think thats what he ment by downgrade, but his arguments seem very static and one-dimentional.

You say that, but you don't prove it.

I doubt any logical argument could dissuade him.

On the contrary, a logical argument is the only thing that would dissuade me.

Which is why you're disappointing me, so.

He is the other side of the "Homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage an abomination" coin.

Absolutely!

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I proudly oppose the 'gay marrriage is an abomination' nonsense. I will accept equality, and nothing less.

Arguments just don't fase him.

Your 'arguments' don't, but that's because your arguments are very poor.

[Omnicracy]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

The fact that you think changeing everything would be a downgrade shows I was wrong and you realy don't get it.

The fact that you think that's me speaking shows you really DON'T get it.

Wha? What I got from that is someone hacked your account and posted agianst your wishes and I should have known you wouldn't say that. If thats not what you ment by "The fact that you think that's me speaking..." then could you explain?

[EVIL BEYOND COMPARE]

gay people should be clasifeid as mentally ill for thier unnatural atraction to the same gender. i mean it is only natural for animals to pair up with the different gender in order to produce young

[New Kereptica]

gay people should be clasifeid as mentally ill for thier unnatural atraction to the same gender. i mean it is only natural for animals to pair up with the different gender in order to produce young

Is an anal sex fetish a mental illness?
EDIT: Is masturbating a mental illness? Is an attraction for anything sexual that isn't unprotected penis-in-vagina a mental illness?

[Buffett and Colbert]

gay people should be clasifeid as mentally ill for thier unnatural atraction to the same gender. i mean it is only natural for animals to pair up with the different gender in order to produce young

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... l_behavior

[Grave_n_idle]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

The fact that you think changeing everything would be a downgrade shows I was wrong and you realy don't get it.

The fact that you think that's me speaking shows you really DON'T get it.

Wha? What I got from that is someone hacked your account and posted agianst your wishes and I should have known you wouldn't say that. If thats not what you ment by "The fact that you think that's me speaking..." then could you explain?

I don't consider it a downgrade. I am aware that a marriage IS a civil union.

I'm not the sort of person you'd have to sell your nonsense to.

[Allbeama]

gay people should be clasifeid as mentally ill for thier unnatural atraction to the same gender. i mean it is only natural for animals to pair up with the different gender in order to produce young

That would be compelling if it weren't for the fact that most animals are way less hung up on the gay sex then we are as a species.

[Grave_n_idle]

gay people should be clasifeid as mentally ill for thier unnatural atraction to the same gender. i mean it is only natural for animals to pair up with the different gender in order to produce young

Which, if all gatherings of individuals were devoted to producing young, might be relevant.

[Omnicracy]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me, regardless of what phony information you think you have. And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all." You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct? Would that not account for at least part of the people voting no? Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

[Buffett and Colbert]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me, regardless of what phony information you think you have. And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all." You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct? Would that not account for at least part of the people voting no? Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

Personal "cuentitos" are hardly compelling.

[Omnicracy]

I don't think thats what he ment by downgrade, but his arguments seem very static and one-dimentional.

You say that, but you don't prove it.

I doubt any logical argument could dissuade him.

On the contrary, a logical argument is the only thing that would dissuade me.

Which is why you're disappointing me, so.

He is the other side of the "Homosexuality is a sin and gay marriage an abomination" coin.

Absolutely!

You say that like it's a bad thing.

I proudly oppose the 'gay marrriage is an abomination' nonsense. I will accept equality, and nothing less.

Arguments just don't fase him.

Your 'arguments' don't, but that's because your arguments are very poor.

1) Any one who reads your posts can see it. provide a link to the contrary if therre is a single post that doesn't.

2) What is your defenition of logic?

3) The other side of the coin means you have the opposite beliefs but act the same way. Do you think the manner in wich they present themselves and their arguments is good, even though you disagree with it?

4) Mine are far better than yours. So, I suppose they could be poor, but I do not think so.

[Omnicracy]

So - everyone would still CALL it marriage, but the text on the license itself would be different?

Marriages ARE 'civil unions'. You're basically arguing that we should retain the separation - because all your idea would do would be change the text, the argument about being able to call it 'marriage' would still remain.

I think you are missing his point the separation is not going to remain, everyone in order to be a couple under the law and get the benefits involved would all be getting simply civil partnerships which is what everyone will get regardless of the two genders.

Everyone that is legally allowed to obtain them DOES get that now, and some of them are called marriages.

I'm not 'getting it' because Omni is not discussing reality.

People that can get marriages now will not 'downgrade'.

The fact that you think changeing everything would be a downgrade shows I was wrong and you realy don't get it.

The fact that you think that's me speaking shows you really DON'T get it.

Wha? What I got from that is someone hacked your account and posted agianst your wishes and I should have known you wouldn't say that. If thats not what you ment by "The fact that you think that's me speaking..." then could you explain?

I don't consider it a downgrade. I am aware that a marriage IS a civil union.

I'm not the sort of person you'd have to sell your nonsense to.

Why would anyone call it a downgrad?

[Omnicracy]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me, regardless of what phony information you think you have. And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all." You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct? Would that not account for at least part of the people voting no? Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

Personal "cuentitos" are hardly compelling.

What do you mean?

[Grave_n_idle]

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me,

I could say you do not know those people, then, no?

And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all."

And 'for all' doesn't include 'homosexuals'?

You're really not keeping up.

If you push the 'gay marriage' argument off the table, and, instead, 'push civil unions for all' - then the opponents of equality for homosexuals will attack civil unions for homosexuals.

They also won't let you change their OWN marriages to 'mere' civil unions.

You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct?

I towuld depend. If the referendum was pushing civil unions as an ALTERNATIVE to marriage equality? Absolutely.

Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

No.

[Blouman Empire]

Really?

That's why the healthcare bill just jumped through hoops, right?

Apparently you're not aware that politicians and the media are people, too - and that they have people they answer to.

I said when they implement the change not when they are trying to implement a change.

[Buffett and Colbert]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me, regardless of what phony information you think you have. And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all." You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct? Would that not account for at least part of the people voting no? Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

Personal "cuentitos" are hardly compelling.

What do you mean?

Personal accounts aren't the best of sources. Admittedly, I've used them too, but you might want to have some other sort of back up considering the crowd you have to please at the present moment.

[Grave_n_idle]

3) The other side of the coin means you have the opposite beliefs but act the same way. Do you think the manner in wich they present themselves and their arguments is good, even though you disagree with it?

Do I believe refusing to compromise is a good thing? Is that what you mean?

That depends on the circumstances.

There should be no compromise on equality.

4) Mine are far better than yours.

Your entire argument boils down to the belief that people won't oppose civil unions - despite the evidence of... well, reality. Keep telling yourself your arguments are good, if it helps.

[Grave_n_idle]

Really?

That's why the healthcare bill just jumped through hoops, right?

Apparently you're not aware that politicians and the media are people, too - and that they have people they answer to.

I said when they implement the change not when they are trying to implement a change.

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

[Omnicracy]

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me,

I could say you do not know those people, then, no?

And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all."

And 'for all' doesn't include 'homosexuals'?

You're really not keeping up.

If you push the 'gay marriage' argument off the table, and, instead, 'push civil unions for all' - then the opponents of equality for homosexuals will attack civil unions for homosexuals.

They also won't let you change their OWN marriages to 'mere' civil unions.

You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct?

I towuld depend. If the referendum was pushing civil unions as an ALTERNATIVE to marriage equality? Absolutely.

Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

No.

1 has no real way of being solved and you and I have already done 2 to death, so I'll go strait to

3&4) If you would vote against a civil union law, how does that not show more people than you give credit to would vote for one? Does your vote not count?

[Omnicracy]

LOL!!! Are you soo far on your side of it to be THAT wrong about people??? I know several people personaly who compleatly agree with my proposal but are against gay marriage.

No, you don't - you know people who use that excuse.

When the chips are down, civil unions for homsexuals are not statistically significantly any different to 'gay marriages'.

So - 5 of the 6 people you know? They're lying to you.

You do not know these people. None of them are lieing to me, regardless of what phony information you think you have. And I don't say "civil union for homosexuals," I say "civil unions for all." You have clearly shown you would vote against a civil union law, correct? Would that not account for at least part of the people voting no? Taking that into account, doesn't the decrease show that more people act as I say then you are giving credit?

Personal "cuentitos" are hardly compelling.

What do you mean?

Personal accounts aren't the best of sources. Admittedly, I've used them too, but you might want to have some other sort of back up considering the crowd you have to please at the present moment.

He said no people opposed to gay marriage were for civil unions. ABSOLUTLY NONE. What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

[Omnicracy]

3) The other side of the coin means you have the opposite beliefs but act the same way. Do you think the manner in wich they present themselves and their arguments is good, even though you disagree with it?

Do I believe refusing to compromise is a good thing? Is that what you mean?

That depends on the circumstances.

There should be no compromise on equality.

4) Mine are far better than yours.

Your entire argument boils down to the belief that people won't oppose civil unions - despite the evidence of... well, reality. Keep telling yourself your arguments are good, if it helps.

3) I do not compromise on equality, I compromise on a word. That is something you have said you are not willing to do.

4) No, my argument is that if people like you get behind it too, it has enough support to be passed into law, not that it has no opposition what-so-ever, just that the opposition would be too weak to stop it.

[Grave_n_idle]

...I have already done 2 to death, so I'll go strait to

You haven't 'done 2 to death'. You haven't touched it.

Or - are you arguing that civil union legislation will alway pass?

3&4) If you would vote against a civil union law, how does that not show more people than you give credit to would vote for one? Does your vote not count?

If the alternatives are civil union or marriage equality.

Show me an occassion on which that WAS the choice, and we'll examine the voting and see if my vote would have made a difference, eh?

[Blouman Empire]

In real terms - do you honestly believe it's likely... even possible that anyone could pass the sort of legislation you're talking about?

Why do we have to be realistic here? Can't we just discuss the proposal on its pros and cons.

You keep saying marriage is already a civil union, when you get a marriage licence you have a civil union, what Ominocacy has proposed is that we change it to a civil union license for all people regardless of the genders of the two people. Now you say people will still call it marriage, which is fine but it won't be a 'marriage' as known by the government despite other people saying they are married and the gays really aren't. It means naught because even if gays could get marriage license people would still be rejecting it, not to mention that when gays do get a civil union they will still call it marriage despite it not being the fact.

[Grave_n_idle]

What better way to disprove it than people I acctualy know who oppose gay marriage and support civil unions?

Anecdotes prove nothing.