Wow, you actually are that stupid. Now I’ll do a very mean thing, akin to placing food behind a glass wall so a hungry puppy can’t get to it, and tell you to figure out why what you typed here is so stupid. Have fun!
Okay, but unnecessary. And not what I would advocate. I see zero reason why a black/white couple—compromised of one man and one woman—do not qualify to be considered married after their ceremony.
The fact that you think they are the same think shows that you cannot see what the real issue is: marriage is comprised of one man and one woman. Color matters naught. And to dispense with some of your ignorance, even during, and before, the time that anti-miscegenation laws were in place, blacks and whites were marrying. Even within the U.S.
I know this one! First, you pick up the puppy and walk through the glass wall. You leave the puppy and go back through the wall and get the food. Bandage your wounds, then go back through the wall again with the food…
Yeah, except it’s not, you stupid bitch. It was, but as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, there are plenty of countries (and even some states) where that definition of marriage doesn’t apply. Your inability to deal with it is more humorous than pathetic at this point.
Well, what the hell, let him believe whatever he choose. So long as he is in no position to enforce it, who cares? It’s not like he threatens a convincing argument. I doubt anybody reading this thread suddenly saw the darkness and called any gay friends they had and said “Fuck you guys, you suck, you pervs! Quit ruining marriage!”
I have to say, after reading the 4 pages of left wing outrage at magellen01, I’d say that I’d be more embarrassed being part of the pile on.
magellen01 may be holding an unpopular opinion on this board, but it’s not exactly unpopular in this country. And it’s irrelevant what other countries do. The US has its own set of rules, laws, culture and moral compass. “Because Canada has SSM” is hardly a convincing argument.
The other strange thing is the repeated use of the word “stupid”. Is this the third grade? Is this the best you can do? “I know you are but what am I?” is at about the same level as calling someone “stupid” over and over. It’s kind of embarrassing.
I say this not knowing what magellin01’s actual idea is… i get the general direction, but what has been said that is so off the beam? He has his opinion, you have yours, and since the board is overwhelmingly liberal, this pitting is just a pile on to make yourselves feel superior. After 4 pages, you are doing a very poor job of doing nothing but making that. I haven’t read anything that would convince me magellen01’s position is so bad, so void of reason, that to consider it would be outrageous.
so, for the folks that are not interested in reading 10 years of magellen01’s opinion on SSM (like myself) can you tell us what he has said over the past 10 years that is so “stupid”?
As far as I can tell, he has held the position that SSM can occur as long as they aren’t referred to as “marriages”. Is that it? Has he wavered any in the time he’s been here, or changed, expanded, or reduced his opinion, or is it just “stupid”?
This board has one major flaw and that is that it leans so far to the left that very little actual debate or discussion can take place. A discussion that might help one side see the other’s POV.
I find the left leaning people on this board to be close-minded, and can afford to be as most agree with each other and reconfirm their superiority. It would never occur to you that you might actually be “wrong” on occassion, does it?
Expecting magellin01 to flip his position on your “arguments” is as ridiculous as him expecting you to flip yours. Especially with all of the great reasoning being hammered home in this thread.
The reasons his opinion on the matter is stupid have been gone over in excruciating detail for, oh, the past 10 years in dozens of threads. The fact that you can’t be bothered to read them (can’t really blame you there) doesn’t mean there haven’t been thousands of well-intentioned, well-reasoned posts pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. I’m sure it’s comforting to think that when people are arguing with your opinion they’re merely resorting to “You’re a doody-head!”, but that’s not the case with this fool. Nobody would deny this board leans left, but it’s no more a liberal pile-on than it is when posters call out the virulent racists who pop up on the boards. I guarantee you nobody condemning him has any trouble understanding his POV. It’s just that it’s patently ridiculous.
And it’s not just other countries, BTW - it’s become the position of the majority here in the U.S.
This is the Pit thread. The actual arguments are being posted over in GD.
As for magellan changing his mind, while it would be nice, I don’t expect that to happen. I can’t speak for everyone else who’s been arguing with him, but I engage him not to change his mind, but to demonstrate that his position is logically unsound and insupportable, for the benefit of any potential readers who’s opposition to SSM may be wavering. Or, barring that, as practice for when I need to engage in this debate outside of the SDMB.
You made his point perfectly. Comparing me to a racist. I want gay couples to enjoy all the legal rights and benefits as straight couples, while preserving the word “marriage” for traditional marriage and I’m deranged. The reason you don’t see the stupidity of that position is that you are a leftists enjoying have buzz of so many other leftists. So, thanks for giving such weight to Stink Fish Pot’s point. Beautiful work. for which I am in your debt.
Please show where Freud was a **psychiatrist. **
A couple of things need to be corrected here. Well, one point added and one corrected. On a closely related issue, did I or did I not change my mind when you presented me with certain facts? Why yes, yes, I did. The specific objection I had to barring gays in the military was rendered moot by information you provided and I abandoned my position and became and advocate of gays in the military.
Second, and more important, you do NOT engage me and debate my position; you engage me, yes, but argue against a position I do NOT hold. I can only guess you do this because you can level valid objections against the position held by your secret mystery poster, but not against the actual position I actually hold.
No, you’ll, evidently, have to try harder.
But here’s a hint, lest you hurt yourself by rubbing to synapses together: I never said Freud was a psychiatrist. Let’s see how you do now…
Thank you for posting this.
cool story
:rolleyes:
No.
Marriage is comprised of two people who love each other. It’s about two people loving each other so much that they provide a positive example for others.
It’s that simple.
My thanks to you too, Stink Fish Pot: magellan, unclear before your post on what argumentam ad populum was, now has an excellent example!
The rest of your post was rubbish, of course, but at least you moved the debate forward in this small way. Magellan may owe you tutoring fees; PM him.
Wait, what?
If you honestly think that “liberals view homosexuality as a fetish” you really need to get out more.
I just want everyone to have the same rights to declare their love and have the right to marry that I enjoy as a hetero male.
And with all due respect, anyone who uses the made-up word “Europhile” as a pejorative is a xenophobic American tool.
And you’re a fucking teacher? Unbelievable. I’m beginning to think you know nothing of logic. The logical fallacy you allude to is a fallacy because it seeks to prove the rightness of a position through and appeal to the masses. Stink Fish Pot did no such thing. So the tutoring fees are—once again—owed to me by you. He merely pointed out that the level of vitriol in thread was out of whack given my position. He did not state agreement and take a position that I was correct. I think you’re better suited to spending your time cleaning the blackboards.
The “one woman/one man” argument is so elegantly simple…until you consider people like me. Then the “Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” advocates just sort of dig their toe into the sand, look away, and change the subject.
IIRC the Constitution gives us the right to marry someone, yes? Who do you all think would magellan01 allow me to marry? I’m listed legally in some government and medical documents as “I”, some as “M” and some as “F.”
One woman one man only…which one? Think fast!