toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[bybee]

. . . were I the one doing what chrys is doing I would be :banned:.

. . . why is it that "punishment" for disruptive behavior is so . . . unfairly meted out?

Actually, I think Knight is pretty long-suffering and understanding, somewhat tolerant even. But, if you tread on one of his nerves his judgment is swift and punishment even swifter!
If he were to let up too much, this place would become untenable.
I think he does a good job overall.:up:

 

[chrysostom]

This is what I've pointed out about your practice of dodging and not really answering. I give you an argument, rooted in equality before the law, and you reach for the most grotesque potential imaginable to attempt to taint by association what you cannot reasonably address else.

I've set out, factually, how the marriage contract needn't produce or concern itself with children. I have also set out how, were that to be considered, the homosexual couple could through adoption or surrogacy produce and provide for children. I've noted the argument against discriminatory practice. The only way you can object to homosexual marriage is by applying your religious dogma, the very thing you would and have objected to strongly when attempted by Islamic fundamentalists.

it sounds like you are against a brother marrying a brother

do you have any reasons for that?

 

[chrysostom]

I understand that feeling. I don't much like change that is thrust upon me. But my feelings don't make much of a difference. I try to find a way to survive change.

what you think or believe might make a difference

why don't you share that?

 

[chrysostom]

. .
. . . infertile men and women cannot have children either.


.

we have no reason to believe they can't

 

[Silent Hunter]

Actually, I think Knight is pretty long-suffering and understanding, somewhat tolerant even.

. . . toward his own . . . absolutely.

. . . anyone else . . .
. . . not so much.

But, if you tread on one of his nerves his judgment is swift and punishment even swifter!

. . . but is he . . . fair?
. . . :nono:.

If he were to let up too much, this place would become untenable.

. . . unlikely.

I think he does a good job overall.

. . . overall? . . . perhaps.

. . . toward certain individuals . . .
. . . :nono:.

 

[Town Heretic]

it sounds like you are against a brother marrying a brother

do you have any reasons for that?

That's what I thought. Presented with yet another chance to do the intellectually honest thing you retreat behind yet another smoke screen. It's making conversation with you meaningless, except as a means to fight misinformation. I'm sorry to see it.

But to do more than you're ever likely to: of course I find your example morally objectionable. Or I would if anyone was actually suggesting it. Doesn't have anything to do with the legality involved though. I'm also against Sharia law overlays. You are too, which means you're advancing a hypocritical position, or an irrational one.

 

[Silent Hunter]

it sounds like you are against a brother marrying a brother

. . . do you think that is what he said?

. . . :nono: . . .
. . . not even close.

do you have any reasons for that?

. . . are you married?

. . . do you have children?

. . . got an answer yet?

 

[chrysostom]

That's what I thought. Presented with yet another chance to do the intellectually honest thing you retreat behind yet another smoke screen. It's making conversation with you meaningless, except as a means to fight misinformation. I'm sorry to see it.

But to do more than you're ever likely to: of course I find your example morally objectionable. Or I would if anyone was actually suggesting it. Doesn't have anything to do with the legality involved though. I'm also against Sharia law overlays. You are too, which means you're advancing a hypocritical position, or an irrational one.

so you think brothers should be able to legally marry?

 

[Silent Hunter]

we have no reason to believe they can't

. . . perhaps you're unfamiliar with what the word "infertile" means . . . see 1 & 2.

 

[Silent Hunter]

so you think brothers should be able to legally marry?

. . . two brothers can get married . . .
. . . but . . .
. . . only if two white guys can too . . .
. . . :chuckle:.



. . . oh . . . and then there's this . . .

. . . are you married?

. . . do you have children?

 

[chrysostom]

. . . perhaps you're unfamiliar with what the word "infertile" means . . . see 1 & 2.

how do we know someone is infertile?

 

[Town Heretic]

. . . toward his own . . . absolutely.
. . . anyone else . . .. . . not so much.

Except there are any number of people holding and advancing ideas against his position who don't run into trouble on the ban front without meaning to. As I've noted previously, my introduction here involved Knight yelling at me. :chuckle: And PK slapping a neg rep on my then nonexistent rep. I stuck to my guns, made my points, established my own reputation and eventually thrived here, even if lately I've come to suspect the place might be better off with me taking a prolonged vacation, as my suffering thermostat isn't what it once was...

While I now consider Knight a friend I'm hardly one of insiders around here, not being a right winger or SOS member, by way of illustration. I also haven't been sent packing. Not because I've been on the popular side of the issues here, but because I approach issues without resorting to practices that I understand would be counterproductive to my point. So while my opponents may find me a condescendingly arrogant gas bag, they won't find a descriptive that crosses the line into the undefensible and infraction worthy.

It isn't physics.

. . . but is he . . . fair?. . . :nono:.

By what standard? And even allowing for it, if you realize it and understand the implications it shouldn't be a real impediment.

. . . unlikely.

I differ, having looked about at a number of less well regulated forums and seen the crudity that passes for discourse as a common practice. I'm glad we have higher standards here and would applaud the effort to achieve that without squelching spirited discussion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

how do we know someone is infertile?

. . . modern medicine has tests for that sort of thing . . . I'm told.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Except there are any number of people holding and advancing ideas against his position who don't run into trouble on the ban front without meaning to. As I've noted previously, my introduction here involved Knight yelling at me. :chuckle: And PK slapping a neg rep on my then nonexistent rep. I stuck to my guns, made my points, established my own reputation and eventually thrived here, even if lately I've come to suspect the place might be better off with me taking a prolonged vacation, as my suffering thermostat isn't what it once was...

While I now consider Knight a friend I'm hardly one of insiders around here, not being a right winger or SOS member, by way of illustration. I also haven't been sent packing. Not because I've been on the popular side of the issues here, but because I approach issues without resorting to practices that I understand would be counterproductive to my point. So while my opponents may find me a condescendingly arrogant gas bag, they won't find a descriptive that crosses the line into the undefensible and infraction worthy.

It isn't physics.

By what standard? And even allowing for it, if you realize it and understand the implications it shouldn't be a real impediment.

I differ, having looked about at a number of less well regulated forums and seen the crudity that passes for discourse as a common practice. I'm glad we have higher standards here and would applaud the effort to achieve that without squelching spirited discussion.

. . . yet chrys is still . . . here.

. . . when with every post he shows us he . . . shouldn't.

. . . I would have been banned LONG ago.

. . . and you say that's fair? .

 

[Town Heretic]

. . . yet chrys is still . . . here.

. . . when with every post he shows us he . . . shouldn't.

Well, he isn't being either profane or profound, so there's no reason for much praise or any particular censure. I doubt Knight is paying this thread any particular attention or, if he is, finds much in it that surprises him or pushes the permissible envelope.

 

[chrysostom]

. . . modern medicine has tests for that sort of thing . . . I'm told.

should we all be tested?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, he isn't being either profane or profound, so there's no reason for much praise or any particular censure. I doubt Knight is paying this thread any particular attention or, if he is, finds much in it that surprises him or pushes the permissible envelope.

. . . I would have been banned LONG ago.

. . . and you say that's fair? .

 

[Silent Hunter]

should we all be tested?

. . . why?

. . . what does being tested for being able to have children to do with getting married?

 

[chrysostom]

. . . why?

. . . what does being tested for being able to have children to do with getting married?

are you having trouble following this conversation?

want to start all over?

 

[Silent Hunter]

are you having trouble following this conversation?

. . . no . . . you?

want to start all over?

. . . start over?

. . . we do that every time you submit a post.