Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in Connecticut
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in Connecticut Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Oct 28th, 2008 11:17 AM
Dimnos
Quote:
Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost View Post
I'm still for passing the Marriage Lease that's good for 5 years and comes with pre-nups. Good for a starter marriage.
Nice
Oct 27th, 2008 09:45 PM
10,000 Volt Ghost I'm still for passing the Marriage Lease that's good for 5 years and comes with pre-nups. Good for a starter marriage.
Oct 25th, 2008 11:00 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big McLargehuge View Post
new law, marriage is to be between two human adults.
Two human unrelated adults.
Oct 25th, 2008 02:19 PM
Big McLargehuge new law, marriage is to be between two human adults.
Oct 25th, 2008 03:27 AM
kahljorn Dimnos, everything you said has already been responded to.
Oct 24th, 2008 05:21 PM
Tadao
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeanette X View Post
I think this sums it up:
Or asian women have mule breath
Oct 24th, 2008 05:07 PM
Dr. Boogie I think what she was trying to say with that pic is that asian women have bad teeth.
Oct 24th, 2008 02:39 PM
Tadao asian donkey lover
Oct 24th, 2008 11:38 AM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
You need to move on.
Eh, I believe I will. I'm bored with this thread.
Oct 24th, 2008 11:04 AM
Grislygus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimnos View Post
I wish you two the best and I really hope gay or interracial couples cant influence your marriage as much as you seam to think.
Theoretical argument versus low flying airplanes
Oct 24th, 2008 10:44 AM
Dimnos I didnt say people could do whatever they wanted and only answer to god. I said IF two gay people being together is wrong in the eyes of good and they are only hurting themselves and have nothing to do with anyone else... then they only have god to answer to. This debate started out talking about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, somehow it got taken off on a tangent on whether or not it is morally acceptable to god and the bible. We have a separation of church and state, the moral issues of one religion (even if it is the religion of majority) shouldnt be taken into account when making policy and/or law. Oh and congratulations on your engagement. I wish you two the best and I really hope gay or interracial couples cant influence your marriage as much as you seam to think.
Oct 23rd, 2008 11:27 PM
kahljorn
Quote:
referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other.
Dimnos said that people should be able to do whatever they want and they only have to answer to god. I said that god expects people to punish sinners. It was a simple counter-argument. I explained this. I also gave a secular example for his secular portion of that argument.

Quote:
You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?
Obviously I turned it around used you in the example since there was plenty of times I punched you in t he testicles.

Quote:
Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.
You said that divorce should be outlawed because I said that keeping family cohesion for the well-being of the children in the family is important. I said I agree, but you can ask what is worse for the family. Implying that it might be worse for families to not get divorced, and therefore they should. I explained this. There's nothing inconsistent about it. My argument was always that family structures exist for the well-being of the family, and that gay marriage weakens this. If divorce doesn't weaken the family structures, then there's no reason for it to be outlawed.
Then I pointed out that there is largely different effect on a child who never had a family / stable family structure and somebody who had one that only lasted ten years.

all of this was explained. You never argued that I was still inconsistent, despite this. You need to move on.
Oct 23rd, 2008 10:53 PM
Tadao Donkey hater
Oct 23rd, 2008 09:06 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadao View Post
Asian hater
The kid's race has jack shit to do with the joke.

(See Kahl, when someone misunderstands you, you explain yourself. This is how its done. :didactic)
Oct 23rd, 2008 07:30 PM
Tadao Asian hater
Oct 23rd, 2008 07:13 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
Whatever, jeanette.

My arguments didn't really "Clash" and I'd like you to point it out where they did. Go ahead, jeanette.
Aside from the issue of race? Lets see, referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other. Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.

Quote:

In an argument, if somebody is attacking your testicles and you block the chest attack unfortunately that doesn't mean you've won or even made a good point.
You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?

Quote:
You have no further arguments to make on those clarifications because you're mentally retarded or something.
I asked what your real stances were and told you I was tired of your constantly shifting position. You refused to tell me what your real stances on the issue were, insisted that I should intuitively understand when you were making a joke and when you weren't, and told me that I should be able to glean your real beliefs from your ramblings rather than outline them for me clearly. That isn't clarification, that's obfuscation.
Oct 23rd, 2008 05:20 PM
kahljorn Whatever, jeanette.

My arguments didn't really "Clash" and I'd like you to point it out where they did. Go ahead, jeanette.
the only thing you really brought up was the divorce thing which I qualified when I made the statement. So you really have no ground to stand on there, and obviously you haven't been standing on it because you abandon every argument that you make. You know, sometimes when people argue they will argue the same point for a while but each time their points will change gradually...
I've been way more consistent than you've been.

In an argument, if somebody is attacking your testicles and you block the chest attack unfortunately that doesn't mean you've won or even made a good point. Analogously, you would be on the ground in the fetal position crying and pretending you have won.

and you know what's the most annoying about this? I posted that shit about interracial marriage a whole two pages or something ago and there was only one or two responses to it, which I responded to. Then you didn't say anything about it until a whole page later and tried to act like you won on that subject. I made a whole two posts about it after that and you acted like t he argument dragged on forever. I clarified myself when you asked me to. You have no further arguments to make on those clarifications because you're mentally retarded or something.

It's really sad that you asked me to make those points and i did and now you have nothing further to say except this bullshit.
Oct 23rd, 2008 03:43 PM
Grislygus
Oct 23rd, 2008 02:22 PM
Tadao So... you are saying that having an intellectual conversation with an Asian is the same as having one with a donkey. Very nice.
Oct 23rd, 2008 12:34 PM
Jeanette X
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn View Post
My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.
I at least make an effort.

Quote:
I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.
If you didn't want me to argue the weaker arguements, why did you present them in first place? Besides, I see nothing wrong with attacking the weak points first. If you're in a fist fight with a guy, where do you punch first, his chest, or his testicles?

Quote:
You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.
I've slogged through prose in sociology books that would make your head explode. The difference between you and someone like Roland Barthes (attempting to read his work is like trying to inhale a Buick) is that he presented a point in what he wrote. You presented me with no central thesis, no point, no core values, deliberately made arguments to that clashed with previous ones, and then you expect me to sift through this mountain of rhetoric and find the hidden meanings like a Kabbalist studying Torah.

Quote:
The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.
Don't project your vindictive tendencies onto me. I'm doing this because its a lot of fun, not because I'm petty the way you are.

Quote:
I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!
I certainly is. I'm quite amused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeldaQueen View Post
I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once.
I think this sums it up:
Oct 23rd, 2008 12:15 PM
ZeldaQueen I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once.
Oct 23rd, 2008 01:03 AM
kahljorn yea ok

anyway the sad fact is she couldn't even defeat the arguments i was making. Then a whole page later she brings it back up like I didn't defeat them properly when she totally abandoned them. They weren't really THAT crazy.


and grislygus i totally remember that now.
Oct 23rd, 2008 12:11 AM
ZeldaQueen Mm. Not meaning to knock on anyone, but Jeanette kind of has a point on people saying stupid stuff in all seriousness. Case in point - There was a fine moron on IMDB who believed that "the only place there'd be a sequel for [the Golden Compass] was in hell". This sparked a bunch of religious debates with him, where he basically made stuff up. When I pointed out that since after Adam and Eve were banished from Eden there was a limited number of people, there'd be genetic inbreeding. I also pointed out the same problem with the Ark (inbreeding with animals). He then said that God made more people after Adam and Even and that there was genetic inbreeding but God fixed it (and he claimed it was all in the Bible). He also claimed that Jesus was now in control of the movie industry because Fireproof did better than Religulous did.

Point is, silly stuff does come up. I've been fooled meself.
Oct 22nd, 2008 07:16 PM
Grislygus It had good quoting and citation, though
Oct 22nd, 2008 07:15 PM
Grislygus I can't find it now We were arguing about Geggy in one thread and journalistic ethics in the other, and it quickly ended up as one big, pointless argument about how the other guy was wrong about everything
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 AM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.