What's Wrong With Civil Unions?

ancap

ancap

Active Member
doobnVA said:
Does the IRS come to your house and beat you with a stick until you pay your taxes?

No? Then where's the "violent force"?

Just wondering...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Any relationship that you begin voluntarily can also be ended voluntarily. The belief that your relationship with the IRS is a voluntary one is simply not true because you cannot choose to disengage from the relationship. If you do, you will be kidnapped and taken to jail. That is not voluntarism.

If you pay monthly for a gym membership (say it's a basic month to month contract for argument sake), and you decide not to pay for any more months, you will get letters and phone calls citing your non-payment. Eventually if you do not pay, your membership will simply be canceled. End of story. Relationship over.

However, when it comes to paying the IRS, this scenario plays out a lot different (the govt is very good at hiding the gun in the relationship). You'll get a couple letters in the mail citing your non-payment. Then you'll get more letters which have a far more serious tone. Then I suppose you'll get a court summons and a demand to appear before a judge. If you ignore that, an armed officer will come to your door and attempt to put you in hand cuffs. If you resist this initiation of violence with self-defense, you will be killed or brutalized on the spot.

That sound voluntary? You certainly wouldn't call your gym membership voluntary if they behaved in this same manner, and they provide you services too!
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
RickWhite said:
You know full well I don't take issue with ponying up for public infrastructure. Redistribution of wealth on the other hand is stealing. If you are going to talk about the general welfare you ought to read up on the subject.
Click to expand...
I would agree with RickWhite that redistribution of wealth is blatant theft by the federal government. On the other hand, I think charity and handouts can be a wonderful thing. I just don't want to be forced to be charitable by the government.

On the statement of "ponying up for public infrastructure" I would just restate my question that I asked doobnVA... If there was a voluntary system that could support all of our social infrastructure needs without the use of theft from a government, would it be worth exploring that possibility?
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
It is the "but" in your sentence that I think hints at the problem. There is nothing wrong with upholding and advocating for ALL the values that are important to you. We all should do that. Just pretty please don't use the government to legislate your values!

Man, there are so many children in need of a loving home. It seems like you would rather them be raised in a transitional and in some cases broken foster care system where they have NO mother or father. It seems like you sorta make up these gay parenting disadvantages in your head and then present them as fact.

Here's why I believe what I believe, backed by sources...

1. According to the American Psychological Association Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children, "there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.

2. The American Psychological Association also states "Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents".

3. There is no conclusive evidence that homosexuality is linked to one's environment. In other words, growing up in a gay couple household will not "make" a child gay. Read Nature vs. Nurture: Born or Made Gay.

All of the research to date has reached the same unequivocal conclusion about gay parenting: the children of lesbian and gay parents grow up as successfully as the children of heterosexual parents. In fact, not a single study has found the children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged because of their parents' sexual orientation.

See Bailey, J.M., Bobrow, D., Wolfe, M. & Mikach, S. (1995), Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers, Developmental Psychology, 31, 124-129; Bozett, F.W. (1987). Children of gay fathers, F.W. Bozett (Ed.), Gay and Lesbian Parents (pp. 39-57), New York: Praeger; Gottman, J.S. (1991), Children of gay and lesbian parents, F.W. Bozett & M.B. Sussman, (Eds.), Homosexuality and Family Relations (pp. 177-196), New York: Harrington Park Press; Golombok, S., Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. (1983), Children in lesbian and single-parent households: psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 551-572; Green, R. (1978), Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents, American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697; Huggins, S.L.
Click to expand...

There are some major errors in logic here. First, it is proponents of Gay marriage that are using the Government to force a change to the definition of marriage. I am not suggesting we prevent Gays from doing as they wish, I am only suggesting we do not allow them to force society to change. Also, there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to marry. Marriage is not a right, it is arguably a civil liberty given by society but I'm not even 100% on that.

Also, it is a fallacy of logic to argue that a given proposition is right because there is no proof of the contrary position. This is called argument from ignorance or argument ad-ignorantiam.

Read more about that here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

The APA is a very left leaning organization so it makes sense they would promote those type of fallacious modes of thought. The correct way of thinking when dealing with the welfare of children is to ask if there is proof that gay homes will be as healthy as traditional homes. Given that traditional homes afford the influence of both a mother and father and gay homes do not I think they will be hard pressed to ever establish this.
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
RickWhite said:
There are some major errors in logic here. First, it is proponents of Gay marriage that are using the Government to force a change to the definition of marriage. I am not suggesting we prevent Gays from doing as they wish, I am only suggesting we do not allow them to force society to change. Also, there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to marry. Marriage is not a right, it is arguably a civil liberty given by society but I'm not even 100% on that.
Click to expand...
The government doesn't grant us any freedom, it only takes freedom away or gives us back freedoms it once stole. All marriage is is a written contract between two committed individuals that essentially unifies them by protecting their mutual interests. This is a freedom EVERYONE should have. The government had no ethical right in the first place to define marriage ONLY between a man and a woman because that excludes same sex individuals who love each other and wish to legally enter into a contractual union just like their heterosexual neighbors.

Demanding equal rights is NOT an affront to your liberty. Having a gay couple marry might indeed offend you, but we are allowed to offend people in this country and it certainly wouldn't limit your choices. However, claiming that only heterosexual couples are allowed to marry each other limits the choices and liberties of gay couples, which is an affront to their freedom. If marriage is good for one type of person, it is good for ALL types of people. Same with ANY ethical proposition.

RickWhite said:
Also, it is a fallacy of logic to argue that a given proposition is right because there is no proof of the contrary position. This is called argument from ignorance or argument ad-ignorantiam.

Read more about that here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
Click to expand...
Please show me where I made such an argument so I can be more clear on how to respond.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
Any relationship that you begin voluntarily can also be ended voluntarily. The belief that your relationship with the IRS is a voluntary one is simply not true because you cannot choose to disengage from the relationship. If you do, you will be kidnapped and taken to jail. That is not voluntarism.

If you pay monthly for a gym membership (say it's a basic month to month contract for argument sake), and you decide not to pay for any more months, you will get letters and phone calls citing your non-payment. Eventually if you do not pay, your membership will simply be canceled. End of story. Relationship over.

However, when it comes to paying the IRS, this scenario plays out a lot different (the govt is very good at hiding the gun in the relationship). You'll get a couple letters in the mail citing your non-payment. Then you'll get more letters which have a far more serious tone. Then I suppose you'll get a court summons and a demand to appear before a judge. If you ignore that, an armed officer will come to your door and attempt to put you in hand cuffs. If you resist this initiation of violence with self-defense, you will be killed or brutalized on the spot.

That sound voluntary? You certainly wouldn't call your gym membership voluntary if they behaved in this same manner, and they provide you services too!
Click to expand...
Accurate post and well put. I've tried to get people to see the gun in the room, but many still willingy wear the blinders. Good to see somebody else that understands that government uses extortion as it's principle tool.
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
If gays have an ethical freedom to enter into a voluntary social contract like everyone else, then legislating that right away from them is using the government to initiate force on those people to enforce the will of the immoral majority.
Click to expand...
Civil unions would give gays the freedom to do exactly what you are suggesting.

What it would not do, and gay marriage would, is FORCE the rest of society to change the definition of their most fundamental institution. Gay marriage would also FORCE the whole of society to include the gay lifestyle in damn near every aspect of their lives.

Nobody is trying to legislate "rights" away from Gays. Marriage isn't a right to begin with and the only proposed legislation is by Gays to FORCE the rest of us to give them our seal of approval.

Marriage is not a right, it is a status granted by our Government and our religious leaders. Choosing not to extend eligibility of that status beyond its current definition is in no way a use of force against Gays; this is simply false.

If gays want to, they could easily accept a civil union in which they would be spouses in the eyes of the law and then conduct a private ceremony in which they wold be wed. This is in all ways the same as a marriage except for one very important way. This way does not FORCE society to acknowledge and accept the gay lifestyle as being equal to traditional marriage.

That is the point of the thread. What Gays strive for is unfortunately not the freedom to live as they wish (which civil unions would grant them), but to FORCE the rest of us to accept their lifestyle and to teach it to our children.

To do this is to trample on the rights of the masses in the name of ensuring liberties of the few.
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
The government doesn't grant us any freedom, it only takes freedom away or gives us back freedoms it once stole. All marriage is is a written contract between two committed individuals that essentially unifies them by protecting their mutual interests. This is a freedom EVERYONE should have. The government had no ethical right in the first place to define marriage ONLY between a man and a woman because that excludes same sex individuals who love each other and wish to legally enter into a contractual union just like their heterosexual neighbors.

Demanding equal rights is NOT an affront to your liberty. Having a gay couple marry might indeed offend you, but we are allowed to offend people in this country and it certainly wouldn't limit your choices. However, claiming that only heterosexual couples are allowed to marry each other limits the choices and liberties of gay couples, which is an affront to their freedom. If marriage is good for one type of person, it is good for ALL types of people. Same with ANY ethical proposition.



Please show me where I made such an argument so I can be more clear on how to respond.
Click to expand...
All the statements made by the APA are argument ad-ignorantiam.

I think where you, and most, are going wrong here is in your understanding of the term "rights." All of our rights are delineated in the Constitution and there is no right to marry.

You are also mistaken in that you think that people's unwillingness to change a definition that has been part of every culture on Earth from their inception is a use of force.

Refusing to recognize a marriage is not a use of force. Now if the Government told Gays they would stone them, that would be a use of force.

But regardless, why is it you feel civil unions which grant the same legal status are insufficient for your intended purpose?
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
RickWhite said:
The APA is a very left leaning organization so it makes sense they would promote those type of fallacious modes of thought. The correct way of thinking when dealing with the welfare of children is to ask if there is proof that gay homes will be as healthy as traditional homes.
Click to expand...
Questioning the credibility of a source is certainly valid. I do not know anything about the organization or their purported agendas. Regardless, you need to establish a few things in your argument before I can accept your presuppositions...

1. If you are proposing that children be left in a demonstrably broken and unhealthy foster care system in lieu of being adopted by a stable and loving gay couple, it is your responsibility to explain how these children would be safer in their foster care environments. Here is a quote from an AP article from 2006...

"For years, children who have been sentenced to navigate the system have been promised refuge from abuse and neglect in their own homes. However, without the state/county agencies being held accountable by no one, foster care remains as inconsistent, abusive neglectful and dysfunctional as many of the homes from which the children were removed from in the first place.

"Without cohesion, leadership and accountability, the system continues to fail too many of the 500,000-plus children assigned to it. Once these children age out of the system at eighteen, the state sees the effects that this broken system has on society."

RickWhite said:
The correct way of thinking when dealing with the welfare of children is to ask if there is proof that gay homes will be as healthy as traditional homes.
Click to expand...
2. Because the foster care system has more children than heterosexual adoptive prospects, this would be the wrong comparison to make. What you need to compare is the foster care environment with a gay parent envoronment. Even proving that a strong relationship with a mother and father is a superior rearing environment, this does not prove that a same sex parent situation creates a net negative outcome as compared to the foster care environment. To prevent a child from being adopted by a gay couple simply because it is inferior to the traditional family environment for them, is not enough of a reason to prevent gay adoption. You would have to demonstrate that children of gay couples are worse off than foster care children.

Here are some stats from the artical I cited...

*Only half of foster youth will graduate from high school. Fewer than 10 percent of foster youth enroll in college and only 2 percent actually graduate. Many foster children go through multiple placements and can attend up to five different schools.

*More than 25 percent of foster youth will become incarcerated within two years after they leave the system.
 
lopezri

lopezri

Well-Known Member
This thread has gotten way too confusing and complex. I'm gay and I'm having a hard time following it! Ha/ha!!!
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
RickWhite said:
All the statements made by the APA are argument ad-ignorantiam.

I think where you, and most, are going wrong here is in your understanding of the term "rights." All of our rights are delineated in the Constitution and there is no right to marry.

You are also mistaken in that you think that people's unwillingness to change a definition that has been part of every culture on Earth from their inception is a use of force.

Refusing to recognize a marriage is not a use of force. Now if the Government told Gays they would stone them, that would be a use of force.

But regardless, why is it you feel civil unions which grant the same legal status are insufficient for your intended purpose?
Click to expand...
Hey Rick, we may have reached an impasse here due to our different views on the way government operates and the legitimacy of government itself.

I only believe in voluntary relationships and contracts. I don't believe the government has a place in ANY of these because it is an institution predicated on violence and force. Because this opens up a new can of worms, I'm just not sure you want to get into a debate about alternative voluntary systems and why there should be no place for a government in society.

That said, if government is going to monopolize the contract enforcing realm, it should only enforce rules that apply equally to all people. For example, if men can vote, women should be allowed to vote (and they should be able to call it "voting", not some other synonomous term).

The idea that gay marriage should be kept seperate through "civil unions" is founded on the mostly unspoken belief by some that homosexuality is wrong. If you truly considered it morally equivalent, I'd make the wild guess that you would have no problem calling these civil unions, "marriage". The thing is, when you ask the government to step outside the realm of only protecting person and property to then ask them to legislate YOUR brand of morality, you are forcing your preferences on others. Telling one group of people that they cannot do what everyone else is allowed to do, is improperly using govt force. I have no problem with your religious institution choosing NOT to acknowledge gay marriage, just not the government.

I come from a somewhat neutral stance on this as I am not gay. These laws don't effect me personally. They just offend my desire for true liberty.

PS. How does it make sense that the stability of our society's moral framework hinges NOT on whether or not gays can enter into a legal union, but on what we call this union? If you claim something is wrong, you should consider it wrong regardless of what it's called.
 
RickWhite

RickWhite

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
Questioning the credibility of a source is certainly valid. I do not know anything about the organization or their purported agendas. Regardless, you need to establish a few things in your argument before I can accept your presuppositions...

1. If you are proposing that children be left in a demonstrably broken and unhealthy foster care system in lieu of being adopted by a stable and loving gay couple, it is your responsibility to explain how these children would be safer in their foster care environments. Here is a quote from an AP article from 2006...

"For years, children who have been sentenced to navigate the system have been promised refuge from abuse and neglect in their own homes. However, without the state/county agencies being held accountable by no one, foster care remains as inconsistent, abusive neglectful and dysfunctional as many of the homes from which the children were removed from in the first place.

"Without cohesion, leadership and accountability, the system continues to fail too many of the 500,000-plus children assigned to it. Once these children age out of the system at eighteen, the state sees the effects that this broken system has on society."



2. Because the foster care system has more children than heterosexual adoptive prospects, this would be the wrong comparison to make. What you need to compare is the foster care environment with a gay parent envoronment. Even proving that a strong relationship with a mother and father is a superior rearing environment, this does not prove that a same sex parent situation creates a net negative outcome as compared to the foster care environment. To prevent a child from being adopted by a gay couple simply because it is inferior to the traditional family environment for them, is not enough of a reason to prevent gay adoption. You would have to demonstrate that children of gay couples are worse off than foster care children.

Here are some stats from the artical I cited...

*Only half of foster youth will graduate from high school. Fewer than 10 percent of foster youth enroll in college and only 2 percent actually graduate. Many foster children go through multiple placements and can attend up to five different schools.

*More than 25 percent of foster youth will become incarcerated within two years after they leave the system.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine most children who have the misfortune of growing up in foster homes will have issues. Are you suggesting that putting them into a gay home somehow has a magical mitigating effect on this?

If we presume that the gay home will be idyllic and the foster home will be miserable I guess it might stand to reason that the child might be better off if placed there at birth. But first we have to assume these two polar opposites and that just isn't reasonable.

How do we know the gay parents will be loving, maybe the home will be abusive. My mother was a foster child and she stayed with some very loving people who she loved dearly. Fact is, we have no way of knowing if a foster home will be a good home or not and we have no way of knowing if a gay home will be a good home so this is a nebulous argument.

The best case scenario is when a child is raised by both of his or her own natural parents. The best way to ensure this happens is to promote the ideal of the traditional family. Gay marriage has the opposite effect. It promotes the idea that the traditional family is no more ideal than any other arrangement. This way of thinking is what produces orphans in the first place.

See my thread "Fathers Matter." Open the link in my second post in that thread and read it.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
Any relationship that you begin voluntarily can also be ended voluntarily. The belief that your relationship with the IRS is a voluntary one is simply not true because you cannot choose to disengage from the relationship. If you do, you will be kidnapped and taken to jail. That is not voluntarism.

If you pay monthly for a gym membership (say it's a basic month to month contract for argument sake), and you decide not to pay for any more months, you will get letters and phone calls citing your non-payment. Eventually if you do not pay, your membership will simply be canceled. End of story. Relationship over.

However, when it comes to paying the IRS, this scenario plays out a lot different (the govt is very good at hiding the gun in the relationship). You'll get a couple letters in the mail citing your non-payment. Then you'll get more letters which have a far more serious tone. Then I suppose you'll get a court summons and a demand to appear before a judge. If you ignore that, an armed officer will come to your door and attempt to put you in hand cuffs. If you resist this initiation of violence with self-defense, you will be killed or brutalized on the spot.

That sound voluntary? You certainly wouldn't call your gym membership voluntary if they behaved in this same manner, and they provide you services too!
Click to expand...

You'll get "kidnapped and taken to jail" because it's against the law not to pay your taxes. As far as I know, there are no laws stating you must pay for a gym membership (though if you don't, they CAN take you to court and make you pay).

I'd like to see someone try and charge the police with KIDNAPPING for arresting them when they break the law.

If you murder someone, the police will also "kidnap" you and take you to jail.

What a tragedy, right? Those poor, kidnapped lawbreakers. It's just so sad.

:wall:
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
RickWhite said:
I'd imagine most children who have the misfortune of growing up in foster homes will have issues. Are you suggesting that putting them into a gay home somehow has a magical mitigating effect on this?
Click to expand...
Not a magical mitigating effect, just a regular mitigating effect. Surely children who are older and more thoroughly damaged will not benefit as greatly from being put into an adoptive home (gay or straight) than their much younger counterparts, but leaving them in the broken system is not the answer.

RickWhite said:
If we presume that the gay home will be idyllic and the foster home will be miserable I guess it might stand to reason that the child might be better off if placed there at birth. But first we have to assume these two polar opposites and that just isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...
You don't need to frame this in such polar extremes. If a gay couple adoption environment is a 7 out of 10 and the foster care environment is a 3 out of 10, then I would see it to the child's advantage to be placed in the former situation. By the way, I'm only conceeding the point that a traditional family environment is better for the sake of argument. I cited quite a few sources besides the APA concerning this issue. You have cited none, though I'm not saying they don't exist.

RickWhite said:
How do we know the gay parents will be loving, maybe the home will be abusive. My mother was a foster child and she stayed with some very loving people who she loved dearly. Fact is, we have no way of knowing if a foster home will be a good home or not and we have no way of knowing if a gay home will be a good home so this is a nebulous argument.
Click to expand...
Again, I've cited sources that back up my claim that children of same sex couples turn out just fine. You have staunchly rejected all my sources. Doing so as quickly as you did leads me to believe that you are unwilling to even examine evidence that contradicts your view. However, I still have not seen evidence of how growing up in a gay home warps a child's development.

There is documented evidence that foster homes pump out abused and neglected children at extremely unacceptable rates. There is no evidence that children of same sex couples are warped at nearly the same rate and intensity, if AT ALL. If anything, I would venture a guess empiracally (yes, I cannot back this up) that adopted children of both same sex and opposite sex couples have a very similar low rate of abuse.

RickWhite said:
Gay marriage has the opposite effect. It promotes the idea that the traditional family is no more ideal than any other arrangement. This way of thinking is what produces orphans in the first place.
Click to expand...
This is only your opinion, but you present it as fact. This is the same type of disaster prediction that the government uses to keep marijuana illegal. Opponents of major social change throughout history always present disaster scenarios. "We can't free the slaves! Our economy would crumble!" or "We can't allow women to vote! They can't handle important decisions coolly and calmly!"

Your predictions of such a social disaster is unfounded.
 
ancap

ancap

Active Member
doobnVA said:
You'll get "kidnapped and taken to jail" because it's against the law not to pay your taxes. As far as I know, there are no laws stating you must pay for a gym membership (though if you don't, they CAN take you to court and make you pay).
:wall:
Click to expand...
Are you saying it's ethically OK for the government to arrest you and take you to jail for smoking pot ONLY IF they first create a law that bans the substance? Your logic fails you on ethical grounds.

Yes, if you enter into a voluntary contract with anyone or any company, and then break that contract, there are consequences. However, you agreed to these consequences voluntarily when you agreed to enter into a contract with them.

doobnVA said:
I'd like to see someone try and charge the police with KIDNAPPING for arresting them when they break the law.
Click to expand...
What a great point! Double moral standard, huh? Maybe your comin' around! :bigjoint:

doobnVA said:
If you murder someone, the police will also "kidnap" you and take you to jail.
Click to expand...
The issue of ciminality can be handled appropriately in a voluntary society, it just takes some thinking outside the box.

Regardless of how you feel about any alternative, will you admit that the government uses force and coercion to extract your money? Can you admit that you have NO CHOICE but to pay or be taken to prison whether you want the government's services or not? Would you admit that they hold a monopoly on social services, so even if you would prefer someone else to build and maintain your roads, you have no choice as a consumer?
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
Are you saying it's ethically OK for the government to arrest you and take you to jail for smoking pot ONLY IF they first create a law that bans the substance? Your logic fails you on ethical grounds.

Yes, if you enter into a voluntary contract with anyone or any company, and then break that contract, there are consequences. However, you agreed to these consequences voluntarily when you agreed to enter into a contract with them.



What a great point! Double moral standard, huh? Maybe your comin' around! :bigjoint:



The issue of ciminality can be handled appropriately in a voluntary society, it just takes some thinking outside the box.

Regardless of how you feel about any alternative, will you admit that the government uses force and coercion to extract your money? Can you admit that you have NO CHOICE but to pay or be taken to prison whether you want the government's services or not? Would you admit that they hold a monopoly on social services, so even if you would prefer someone else to build and maintain your roads, you have no choice as a consumer?
Click to expand...
Do you think "someone" would build and maintain those roads, and NOT charge you to drive on them?

Would you rather leave "social services" to a FOR PROFIT corporate entity? Have you heard the stories of the for profit juvenile detention centers that are essentially recruiting children from family courts (by bribing judges) and then subjecting them to all sorts of cruel and unusual punishments?

Look, there's a law that mandates certain people pay certain levels of taxes. You break those laws, you suffer the consequences.

yes, if I smoke pot and it's against the law, I fully expect to be taken to jail if I'm caught. If I don't agree with the law, then I do what I can to change it. If I don't want to risk going to jail, then I don't break the law. It's that simple, really.


I think you misunderstood my point about charging the police with kidnapping. What I meant was, it's fully within the police's power to arrest you for breaking the law. If you tried to charge them with kidnapping for arresting you, you'd be laughed out of court.


You're assuming that everyone is willing to take part in this "voluntary" society you dream of. That's not the case. We don't live in some utopian society where everyone wants to help out and do their part.

No, the government does not use force and coercion to extract people's money. They use the LAW, which is well within their constitutional power to do so. By living in the United States, you are agreeing to abide by the laws of the United States. Nobody is forcing you to stay. There are places you can go where you won't have to pay taxes.
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
ancap said:
Yes fdd2blk, saying "same sex marriage" is in itself discriminatory because it excludes "opposite sex marriage" in strict semantic terms. My beef with your criticism is... Given the context of everything I stated on this topic, do you really believe I was advocating for two seperate standards of marriage (same sex unions and traditional unions) or were you just trying to playfully nit pick me to death?

If you believe that I was advocating for exclusive "same sex marriage" and NOT a contract called marriage that applies equally to everyone whether your straight or gay, then you completely missed my entire point.

If you look at the entirety of what I wrote (which now is quite a bit on this thread), I cannot fathom how you can take ONE phrase and come to such a conclusion about view. However, if you were just trying to nit pick for argument sake... you got me.
Click to expand...


how many times do i have to say it?


i was simply making a point about your statement and the fact that it contradicted itself.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
fdd2blk said:
see, the big green grinning one means "I"M JOKING", the little stoned yellow one means "I"M STONED AS WELL".


hope this helps.
Click to expand...

It helps tremendously, thank you. I was under the impression that the big green grinning one meant "Do I have something in my teeth" and the stoned yellow one meant "I can't find my mirror".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top