Prop 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…

On November 07 2008 11:09 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Cyric can you clean up my post? I don't know how to fucking make it look concise but I'd like it to be followed...

I fucked up the quotation.. post to response shit.

please fix it

On November 07 2008 11:23 gymni wrote:


Then say the majority (not even vast majority, just majority). 99.99999% not only makes your claim sound exaggerated, it makes me wonder what else you're exaggerating in your post too when clearly 99.999999% is not even close to the truth. It reduces your credibility. Just tell it how it is, no need to sugarcoat anything.

On November 07 2008 11:24 oneofthem wrote:
that's a rhetorical device meant to challenge your support of a position. you could just as well say, no, i condemn this social practice and we should recognize the bad bad ness of banning gay marriage.

since you've been arguing for a particular defense of gay marriage, unless you indicate clearly that you've abandoned the argument, i assume that you were still defending it.

really, if you are only interested in showcasing a bad case of anti gay marriage argument, i should have read more carefully in the beginning and avoided wasting my time.

On November 07 2008 11:27 XaI)CyRiC wrote:


You now owe me your firstborn child.... if he's good at Starcraft 2 (because that's probably how long we'll have to wait until it comes out).

On November 07 2008 11:08 {88}iNcontroL wrote:If people started to go to work via a series of bungee jumps I am sure the government would step in as well. The fact that you can do other things that aren't necessarily good for you or natural doesn't mean that suddenly all forms are "ok." Homosexual sex is not really something they can do.. it is something they use as an alternate form of the natural, more healthy activity of sex. Heterosexual's have sex sure.. but if they only had heterosexual sex I promise you the government would step in. And I don't mean "jim and sally" I mean if every heterosexual person stopped having vaginal sex and started to only have anal sex there would be a governmental reaction.

Again same answer really.. just because you can do other things that are bad doesn't mean that this is ok. And truthfully.. tattooing doesn't compare to having an average of 10-30 partners a year and engaging in sexual activity with most of them.. like the average homosexual man does (these numbers are really rough, I read the book this summer. Someone can wiki me and correct me if they like.. it is close to that though at least). So on the macro level I think the anal sex argument overwhelms your propsed questions in that it occurs more, doesn't go away cause other things are bad and is on a fundamentally different level (ie tattoos do not = alternate form of sex).

By not condoning it society on a whole is hoping (and it is working, "closet homosexual" phenomenon) to dissuage that lifestyle. It is a fact that with more acceptance of homosexuallity comes greater numbers of homosexuals. This was studied in relation to societal turns like the ratings of "Will and Grace" or other like media outlets. I am only gracing the study but it is worth a gander.

Yup I agree. It is backwards and wrong. Would anyone argue against the idea that the government has some crappy precedents and laws? Look legally the banning of gay marriage makes no sense.. socially it is understandable (and by understandable I mean I can see why the masses are afraid of such change.. I don't agree but I know why they sheep that way).

On November 07 2008 11:35 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I won't say "majority" cause that isn't what I am trying to convey. If someone says "99.99999%" they are trying to tell you that they think it is incredibly common.. so much so that it is very close to 100%.

Stop nit picking with a pet peeve.. I will not relent on my use of 99.9999% and you won't be less annoyed by it. GOod luck with this debate rofl

On November 07 2008 11:38 oneofthem wrote:
so did you abandon the argument?

On November 07 2008 11:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote:


Why does it have to go to the degree of people going to work via bungee jumps for it to be outlawed? It's not like homosexual males are having anal sex twice a day (at least not the majority). I think there are a bunch of typos in the rest of your paragraph that I'm too lazy to fix, but I get the general idea Anal sex is something you can do, even if it is an alternative to something that is "more natural", or else how would they be doing it? If you want to restrict sex to a part of the reproductive process, then we can change it to homosexual intercourse or something else that takes that element out. As to the possible scenario where all heterosexual people stopped having vaginal sex, that'd only really become an issue if it resulted in fewer children being born. Otherwise, anal sex would become the majority trend (and opinion), and there'd be no one left to outlaw it. If you're talking about just a select group, i.e. gay men, then the level of harm in the grand scheme of things doesn't arise to a level where society suffers significantly.



So tattooing isn't a good comparison because of its frequency (or lack thereof)? How about smoking, drinking, eating artery-clogging foods, etc.? They're not perfect comparisons, but they're examples that show that the fact that something is potentially harmful to a person doesn't necessarily lead to the government having a compelling interest in preventing it.



Did it lead to a greater number of homosexuals, or just a greater number of known homosexuals? Unless you can show me how that study somehow differentiated between people suddenly becoming homosexual and people who were merely coming out of the closet because they felt less afraid to do so, then that study doesn't mean anything.



I can also understand why many people find the idea of homosexuality very disturbing and want to do whatever they can to remove it from their lives, but at some point people just have to respect each other. A lot more people would have voted differently on Prop 8 if they could put themselves in other people's shoes for just a moment.

On November 07 2008 11:42 gymni wrote:


That's fine. You're losing the argument in my eyes when you have to exaggerate your claims just to make them competitive.

On November 07 2008 11:49 oneofthem wrote:
well, to make up for my not reading stuff, i have offered alternative interpretations. so far i have given an outline of your argument, and the alternative that you have abandoned defending gay marriage. if you did not abandon defending gay marriage, then you should support the ban as a practice of social suppression. if you care to engage with the argument, it should be simple to point out what i have missed.

On November 07 2008 11:51 {88}iNcontroL wrote:


I didn't do that to make them competetive. I did it to convey an idea. That idea didn't have to be winning.. that wasn't the point. The point was there is a vast difference between "Most of the time..." and "99.99999% of the time..."

If you cannot follow that it is either A. your pet peeve dominates your logic or B. you have faulty logic to begin with.

Did you get mad in "Dumb and Dumber" when Floyd asks the woman if he has a chance and she says "1 in a million." Why THE FUCK didn't she just say "Not a very good chance." Perhaps she wanted to convey just how bad his chances were? Nah, fuck that. She lost in your eyes roflflflfl

On November 07 2008 12:00 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Oh you thought I was being literal when I said 99.99999%? Cause I added a percentage? Sorry.. I see the problem: you are retarded.

1 in a million is a fraction which is her opinion and that is fine but when I do percentages it suddenly becomes me passing off things as fact and it hurts my argument blah blah. Nevermind the radical number probably indicating a representation.. yeah better go with what you said. rofl