World Events
Topic: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by CA Supreme Court

#	Author	Message
291	Dabob2 Tue 5/27/2008 8:05a	<Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Dabob's comments. But I've shown he was wrong before, and I'll show that he's still wrong.> Please. You asserted I was wrong the last time we went into this, but "showed" nothing to anyone's satisfaction but your own. You often confuse the two. Meanwhile, I've already shown you to be wrong in your assertion that "There simply is no other candidate to explain why the decline in marriage increased when gay marriage was adopted." The mere fact that you can assert this when there was a very obvious alternate candidate - the change in legal status for non-married STRAIGHT couples - shows how blinkered your view is. <I should have some time tomorrow night.> We'll be waiting with bated breath.
292	Dabob2 Tue 5/27/2008 8:07a	<You ignored my question several times about why infertile couples should or should not be banned from the practice of marriage, and how how exactly they are different from homosexual couples in terms of ability to procreate. Why not start with that?> Don't hold your breath, X-san. Last time around, I posed a similar question: why don't we disallow post-menopausal women from marrying, since we know they won't be producing any children? DD's answer? Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.
293	Kar2oonMan Tue 5/27/2008 8:10a	>>You ignored my question several times about why infertile couples should or should not be banned from the practice of marriage, and how how exactly they are different from homosexual couples in terms of ability to procreate<< He ignored it because it is the first of several loose threads that make his argument against gay marriage unravel. It's easier to play the victim than it is to own up to one's own bigotry. No thinking person would take pride in their bigotry, they'd be ashamed of it, and seek for ways to explain it away. The discomfort is understandable. Clinging to the bigotry in spite of the discomfort is not.
294	mele Tue 5/27/2008 8:20a	Dabob, you'll never get Doug to believe the sources he cites aren't true just as we'll never believe they are true. It's a complete waste of time. You've tried so many times but he only reads these posts to pick through them. He DOESN'T want to change his mind. There's nothing you could say that would change it. What's most frustrating is he refuses to discuss all of the many, many OTHER points people bring up about gay marriage. Maybe because his links don't talk about any of those points so they clearly aren't important to him. He just clings to the study that shows what he wants it to say and ignores the rest and says that no one ever posts anything "thoughtful". Amazingly, year after year, no one has ever posted anything thoughtful? That comment alone shows how his mind works and shows what a complete waste of time talking with him is. Many wonderful points have been brought up here and he ignores them all and parrots the same response. Cling to your study, Doug. It just keeps getting older and more obsolete, as do the people who are against gay marriage. More and more people see how wrong it is to ban it. Thankfully, you only get one vote and you certainly haven't convinced anyone else here why they should vote against it. Waste of time, people. Waste of time.
295	X-san Tue 5/27/2008 8:26a	***Sorry I haven't had a chance to get to Dabob's comments. But I've shown he was wrong before, and I'll show that he's still wrong.*** What a moronic, dismissive and stupid thing to say. "I haven't read it, but I'm sure it's wrong" Sounds like something Limbaugh would say.
296	Dabob2 Tue 5/27/2008 8:48a	<Dabob, you'll never get Doug to believe the sources he cites aren't true just as we'll never believe they are true. > You know, mele, you're probably right. The reason I keep it up has to do with something we talked about earlier about engaging these attitudes in the first place - there are a lot of people who lurk here who don't post. I'm really talking to them half the time. I know quite a few people in my life who used to oppose gay marriage who came around to favor it, just as I had a lot of southern family members earlier in my life who used to support segregation in the 60's, then came to see they were wrong. They didn't change their minds overnight in either case - it was a long, slow process. There are undoubtedly people out there (I've met some of them), who say "you know, I've heard that when they legalized gay marriage in Europe, straight marriage rates went down." Just a vague "I heard that..." kind of thing, without any real investigation. Perhaps if there's someone here in that boat, they'll read the studies Doug clings to, read our comments on them, and understand how flimsy and non-credible those studies are. Perhaps that person comes to understand "oh - they also changed the legal status for unmarried straight couples at this time. That makes more sense for why more straight people wouldn't get married." So although it seems I'm responding to Doug, half the time I realize he's mule-headed on this on and I'm really responding to others who might be reading. Screwing in the light bulb slowly, half a turn at a time, so that maybe eventually (perhaps only after years, as with my relatives and segregation), the light bulb comes on.
297	X-san Tue 5/27/2008 8:51a	***why don't we disallow post-menopausal women from marrying, since we know they won't be producing any children? DD's answer? Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.*** Seems to me that if this institution is so essential and vital to society, and so vulnerable at the same time such that gays could actually harm it, it stands to reason that there needs to be some real criteria attached to the awarding of a marriage license. At the moment, the only requirement is exactly one penis and one vagina. According to the argument Douglas is putting forth, the only legitimate candidates for marriage from a societal standpoint are fully fertile couples who INTEND to make babies. Thus there should be intensive physical and psychological testing involved, to make certain both members are fit to conceive, and to elicit SOME sort of reasonable proof that conception will be forthcoming. Elderly people, sterile people, pro-choice people, unwilling to conceive people, and of course people who might consider adoption in liu of conception need to be purged post-haste, for the good of all society. Overpopulation is a myth, after all. And what else is marriage for anyway? While we're at it, we should also exlude short people, stupid people, diseased people, and anyone else who might contaminate the gene pool by conceiving what in all likelihood would be inferior offspring. Obviously this is necessary for a perfect, strong, undiseased and untainted society. Blond, six feet tall, and white is, of course, ideal.
298	Kar2oonMan Tue 5/27/2008 8:52a	I admire your patience, Dabob. I've lost mine.
299	Kar2oonMan Tue 5/27/2008 8:55a	>>Elderly people, sterile people, pro-choice people, unwilling to conceive people, and of course people who might consider adoption in liu of conception need to be purged post-haste, for the good of all society.<< And people who send text messages in movie theaters!!! (In all seriousness, post 297 makes EXCELLENT points on this topic and slams that whole bizarre line of reasoning, X-san).
300	X-san Tue 5/27/2008 8:59a	Thanks, K2M. Glad you appreciate my comments (always enjoy reading yours!). Which brings us to...

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-370	371-380	381-390	391-400
	401-410	411-420	421-430	431-440	441-450
	451-460	461-470	471-480	481-490	491-500
	501-510	511-520	521-530	531-540	541-550
	551-560	561-570	571-580	581-590	591-600
	601-610	611-620

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
A Happy New Year from the LPP. This week it's Lion King in Vegas, new Johnny Depp movies, Adventurer's Club last night, recent dining experiences, our favorites at Hollywood Studios, reader mail, the Captain's Challenge and more.

What's on
The Latest
Disney Cruise Line Sets Sail For Russia, Northern Europe and Mediterranean in 2010
LP Guide to Sleeping Beauty 50th Anniversary Platinum Edition update
Tokyo Disneyland Resort record attendance
Disney’s Race for the Taste 10K Field Near Capacity
NFFC Honors Four New NFFC Legends
OrlSen: Disney announces new European cruises
Florida NFFC Show and Sale Sunday, October 5th
Tales from the Laughing Place Magazine To Be Sold in Tokyo Disney Resort
Award-Winning Scene It?® Disney Channel Deluxe Edition is the Latest Game to Join Screenlife’s Growing Collection of Titles
ESPN2 to Broadcast One-Hour Special on Oct. 8-9, 2008, Featuring the Prequel to Walt Disney Pictures' Upcoming True-Life Sailing Documentary 'Morning Light'

Click here for The Latest