I've often seen a distinction being made nowadays, at least in written form, between "gay" (homosexual) and "ghey" (teh suxxors).

Sometimes its extra wrong!:p

9th... please do not call yourself a Libertarian.
The LAST thing we do is worry about what others are doing. You have issues with others who have sex with others of the same sex and want to deny them security for your own reasons. Fine, deal with it.
However, that concept is as far from the idea of Libertarianism as any concept can get.

Ibram, for the n'th time would you explain how this is sexism? Gay is not a gender. Also, you absolutely cannot remove love from the equation, that's all this is based on. A gay man wants to marry another man because of love (I'm assuming for the sake of argument), otherwise he is free to marry a woman. With love removed it disentigrates into "I wanna do this!", which isn't a valid reason for anything more important than a late night snack. I want some more arguments from Ibram that don't boil down to either "It's sexism!"(unproven) or "It's just WRONG not to!"(is that the best you can do?).
Lovely little rant about my being unAmerican there tw, so now you think you are right because you label your opponet as freedom hating and unAmerican? Readers would do well to remember how fast he was to resort to smear tactics and challenges of Americanism once responded to. His other key blunder is that his entire post is hinged on his statement that he is right.

Lets look beyond the fact that you are equating my viewpoint with mass-murder here for a second. I said that my principles will not allow me to agree with you, you make the leap to saying that they will always keep me in the wrong. You say two things boldly up front here, neither of which are true 1) You admit you are wrong - Really? Where do I say that? I am no more convinced of any error on my part than when we started. 2) Since I disagree with you I can never be right - Wow, ladies and gentlemen I give you the great debating prowess of tw! I stand in awe, but not of your capacity for argument.


I'm going to keep this one, you are actually accusing me of proclaiming myself as a relieous messiah??:sweat::biglaugha I'm touched

Ah yes, I disagree with a change you like and that means that I am standing in the way of progress. Has anyone ever challenged your notion that your viewpoint constitutes the advancement of mankind? Perhaps you need a little more varience in the opinions of those around you. And you shouldn't be supprised that it's an engineer taking you up on this, we're trained to think things through to every outcome and not to become blinded to an ideology.

You demand my explanation and then pretend I didn't answer?? Can you really have read my posts and still think that this little rant means anything? More adhominem attacks on his opponents Americanism.

All you did in that entire post was restate your unsupported opinion over and over again while challenging my worth as an American. I'll let people judge for themselves how this reflects on your ability to debate an issue.

Ok, a breather, then on to the next batch of responses...

You did not answer. You have never stated, specifically, how gays getting married will affect you personally.

It is an easy question. What is the problem?

:whofart: Is that seriously how you vote? Or for that matter make any decisions in life??

You are basically telling me you have a blind devotion to the cause and really aren't basing your decision on an underlying set of principles. Are you trying to come across as a siren in that last line? 'Don't think ahead, just do what feels right, it'll be easy'. I wouldn't be this far in life if I followed advice like that.

If you want to phrase it that way then I certainly do, I oppose it.


Nice little attack and retreat there rkzenrage, care to provide an explanation of your own logic?
I am a Libertarian at heart, I am, but I am not stupid enough to pretend I live an a libertarian society. For example, I'd love to see a world in which everyone is responsible for themselves and we don't need a welfare system, but I certainly wouldn't vote for a measure to eliminate welfare from our current system.
And for the last time, love is NOT a human right.

I absolutely did say how this affects me personally, re-read post 92#. There is nothing more pitiful than a hypocrite, but I see that having a set of principles has gone out of style

Your morals are your actions, not what you say they are.

The pursuit of happiness is amongst the inalienable rights of man.

Post #92 is about lots of things other than gay marrage... it is a red herring and a non-answer.
Again:

post #92
 

Do you support gay marriage? No, I don't support polygamy. Hey, look over there!

You cannot say you support something but do not support the principles it is based on. Conversely, you cannot say you do not support something, yet claim to support the principles on which it is also based.

Any argument can easily be made flawless, albeit only within the parameters in which you've framed it. >>> pssst! you're still very idealistic!

You can't come up with anything wrong with gay marriage, and make a vague "[polygamy] would probably cause harm overall" claim. Sounds to me like you have some additional principles that come into play with polygamy that you can't apply to gay marriage, in which case your attempt to join them in post 92 fails.

Don't you see? He's inexorably classified them as being "based on the same principles" (defined exclusively by himself, of course) and now Lord Xenu will smite him for hypocrisy if he backpeddles. It's all so clear. THOU CANNOT SUPPORTETH THIS, THOU CANNOT PROCLAIMETH THAT etc. etc.

Lord Xenu? Try any educated, logical, or mature person. If you do not base your decisions on an evaluation of the underlying principles then you have made no thought about it at all. Everyone is gingerly steping around the underlying point that this is all merely an argument based on love, and even though we have a right to the pursuit of happiness there is no stipulation that says you can do so through any means you see fit. The house of cards you call an argument is based on a romantic notion, but this is how you want to see laws made. I want to see a logic trail based on facts and science, no emotion, no claims of who loves who, or who is unhappy. If you cannot do that then you should take your ideas to basement support groups where such drivel is best kept. I turn the burden of proof back on you to convince me that there is a logical reason why I should agree with you without appealing to emotions or flights of fancy.