|
|
 Up |
  |
|
Author: Tim SkirvinTim Skirvin Date: May 15, 2008 11:53
|
| |
| 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: edward ohareedward ohare Date: May 17, 2008 18:38
On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:53:04 -0700, Tim Skirvin
killfile.org> wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1530409120080515
>
> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court overturned a ban
> on same-sex marriages on Thursday in a major victory for gay rights
> advocates that will allow gay and lesbian couples to marry in the most
> populous U.S. state.
>
> This should be fun.
Yea.
I particularly like getting into a conversation on this subject with
someone who brings up its against God's law, and then point out
marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dvusdvus Date: May 19, 2008 07:11
edward ohare wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 11:53:04 -0700, Tim Skirvin
> killfile.org> wrote:
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1530409120080515
>>
>> SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The California Supreme Court overturned a
>> ban on same-sex marriages on Thursday in a major victory for gay
>> rights advocates that will allow gay and lesbian couples to marry
>> in the most populous U.S. state.
>>
>> This should be fun. >
> Yea.
>
> I particularly like getting into a conversation on this subject with
> someone who brings up its against God's law, and then point out
> marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony.
|
| Show full article (0.90Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: edward ohareedward ohare Date: May 20, 2008 22:00
On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:11:49 -0700, dvus
wrote:
>edward ohare wrote:
>> I particularly like getting into a conversation on this subject with
>> someone who brings up its against God's law, and then point out
>> marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony.
>
>Why? I would think you'd be more partial to a conversation with someone with
>a more practical argument either for or against the ruling. Why would you
>like arguing with someone with such easily dismissed reasoning?
I have not been presented with a practical argument against gay
marriage. Non-religious based arguments I've heard are as easy to
dismiss.
The thing about the religious based argument is that after a struggle
that lasts but a few exchanges, the anti-gay-marriage person becomes
quiet, with nothing left to say, but still absolutely convinced he is
right.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: FrankFrank Date: May 21, 2008 09:45
yeah, "captain" sulu wants to marry his manager,
it
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: dvusdvus Date: May 25, 2008 05:43
edward ohare wrote:
> dvus wrote:
>> edward ohare wrote:
>
>>> I particularly like getting into a conversation on this subject with
>>> someone who brings up its against God's law, and then point out
>>> marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony.
>>
>> Why? I would think you'd be more partial to a conversation with
>> someone with a more practical argument either for or against the
>> ruling. Why would you like arguing with someone with such easily
>> dismissed reasoning?
>
> I have not been presented with a practical argument against gay
> marriage. Non-religious based arguments I've heard are as easy to
> dismiss.
That you have not been presented with what you consider a "practical"
argument doesn't preclude the existence of one. Perhaps you ought to
associate with more informed friends.
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ouroboros_RexOuroboros_Rex Date: May 28, 2008 12:41
dvus wrote:
> edward ohare wrote:
>> dvus wrote:
>>> edward ohare wrote:
>>
>>>> I particularly like getting into a conversation on this subject
>>>> with someone who brings up its against God's law, and then point
>>>> out marriage is a legal contract, not a religious ceremony.
>>>
>>> Why? I would think you'd be more partial to a conversation with
>>> someone with a more practical argument either for or against the
>>> ruling. Why would you like arguing with someone with such easily
>>> dismissed reasoning?
>>
>> I have not been presented with a practical argument against gay
>> marriage. Non-religious based arguments I've heard are as easy to
>> dismiss.
>
> That you have not been presented with what you consider a "practical"
> argument doesn't preclude the existence of one. Perhaps you ought to ...
|
| Show full article (1.43Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: edward ohareedward ohare Date: Jun 4, 2008 16:28
On Sun, 25 May 2008 05:43:28 -0700, dvus
wrote:
>Again, I suggest you stretch your horizons to include other than apparently
>inarticulate people. You might find you'd encounter more reasonable debate
>to your self-righteous proclamations.
I notice *** you've *** jumped right up with a compeling argument!
(Can't argue the point, attack the other poster, eh? )
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: jasonjason Date: Jun 18, 2008 08:04
edward ohare wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 05:43:28 -0700, dvus
> wrote:
>
>
>> Again, I suggest you stretch your horizons to include other than apparently
>> inarticulate people. You might find you'd encounter more reasonable debate
>> to your self-righteous proclamations.
>
> I notice *** you've *** jumped right up with a compeling argument!
> (Can't argue the point, attack the other poster, eh? )
It doesn't seem like he was attempting to argue pro or con regarding a
law on gay marriage, only the puerility of actually proclaiming you like
to argue with people who have an obvious flaw in their argument from the
start. Such a point needn't any argument to back it up any more than "I
like the color blue" would.
Also the point that you may wish to take up the argument with more
intelligent dissenters is pretty much self revelatory.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
