The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Coming from one who attacks me whenever this stuff comes up, this is rich.

You could point out where in my statement I am characterizing you incorrectly, or you could answer les' question (instead of telling her to google your beliefs since that doesn't turn up anything). Or you can continue to do what everyone on here does...complain about the lack of adult conversation while ridiculing others and acting all smarmy and holier than thou (which, I fully admit, is darn fun to do).

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

You could point out where in my statement I am characterizing you incorrectly, or you could answer les' question (instead of telling her to google your beliefs since that doesn't turn up anything). Or you can continue to do what everyone on here does...complain about the lack of adult conversation while ridiculing others and acting all smarmy and holier than thou (which, I fully admit, is darn fun to do).

You know full well I'm speaking about a number of times in recent months where I've put out a view on an issue and you and your ilk have attacked me, without trying to engage the issue substantively. I used to take you more seriously before you joined in on some of those attacks.

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

You know full well I'm speaking about a number of times in recent months where I've put out a view on an issue and you and your ilk have attacked me, without trying to engage the issue substantively. I used to take you more seriously before you joined in on some of those attacks.

Bah, all that crap is besides the point. The point is your unwillingness to help people do what you want them to do (which is....and I quote from you...."if you find yourself on one side of an issue, at least understand where the other side is coming from"). I tried to show you "my" side of things with the evolution of complex organ systems in animals and les wants you to show her your side of the gay marriage debate, but both times there was someone preventing that from happening.

I'll give you a dollar if you figure out who! (note, this in not a binding legal contract and no money will exchange hands if the proper answer is produced)

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Bob, why do you do this?

Because if he doesn't back up anything then no one can fact check him.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Bah, all that crap is besides the point. The point is your unwillingness to help people do what you want them to do (which is....and I quote from you...."if you find yourself on one side of an issue, at least understand where the other side is coming from"). I tried to show you "my" side of things with the evolution of complex organ systems in animals and les wants you to show her your side of the gay marriage debate, but both times there was someone preventing that from happening.

I'll give you a dollar if you figure out who! (note, this in not a binding legal contract and no money will exchange hands if the proper answer is produced)

Rubbish. You have come into multiple threads with very mocking comments towards me. You can't flip a switch and expect me to take you for one who wants serious discussion right after mocking me. Give me a break.

And Foxton chimes in as always. What took you so long?

Now by comparison, Kepler I more often than not disagree with, but he knows how to discuss things with someone who he doesn't agree with. Take note.

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

And Foxton chimes in as always. What took you so long?

I've been enjoying the new patch Blizzard just put out for WoW, I don't spend every waking minute waiting to pounce on your falsehoods.

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Bob, I am disappointed that you are unwilling to answer. The wahoos are beside the point. As you won't respond is there anyone else tha knows what the real objection is. I haven't really heard an intelligent reasoned argument and I am curious if it is a kneejerk reaction or there is a reason that makes me get it.

[Rimbaud]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Rubbish. You have come into multiple threads with very mocking comments towards me. You can't flip a switch and expect me to take you for one who wants serious discussion right after mocking me. Give me a break.

And Foxton chimes in as always. What took you so long?

Now by comparison, Kepler I more often than not disagree with, but he knows how to discuss things with someone who he doesn't agree with. Take note.

Or you could answer les' question. Maybe I'm mocking you because you pretend to be above all that you're against, yet, in the end (just like everyone else) you really are what you don't want to be. We're all narrow minded people who don't want our opinions changed. Sometimes you get mocked for them and sometimes you get to mock others.

Kepler's the smart aleckiest of them all who'd condescend anyone just to make himself feel more important (just like Old Pio), so I find it hilarious that you think he knows how to discuss things. You have to dig through 15 layers of grandeur and self importance to get to the crux of what he's saying (which is almost always calling someone an idiot using various latin phrases). And I agree with him more often than not!

[Kepler]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Kepler's the smart aleckiest of them all who'd condescend anyone just to make himself feel more important

I actually practice condescending in the mirror every morning before work, just to keep sharp.

Wait, was I just condescending to you there?

Or there?

[Handyman]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Or you could answer les' question. Maybe I'm mocking you because you pretend to be above all that you're against, yet, in the end (just like everyone else) you really are what you don't want to be. We're all narrow minded people who don't want our opinions changed. Sometimes you get mocked for them and sometimes you get to mock others.

Kepler's the smart aleckiest of them all who'd condescend anyone just to make himself feel more important (just like Old Pio), so I find it hilarious that you think he knows how to discuss things. You have to dig through 15 layers of grandeur and self importance to get to the crux of what he's saying (which is almost always calling someone an idiot using various latin phrases). And I agree with him more often than not!

This post wins the thread

[unofan]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Bob, I am disappointed that you are unwilling to answer. The wahoos are beside the point. As you won't respond is there anyone else tha knows what the real objection is. I haven't really heard an intelligent reasoned argument and I am curious if it is a kneejerk reaction or there is a reason that makes me get it.

Here's the least unintelligent reasoning I've heard, though it's more of a technical legal one than a moral/ethical/philisophical one. Also, there are plenty of holes to be shot through it.

Sexual orientation is not yet a protected class afforded strict scrutiny (like race/ethnicity are) under the equal protection clause, so the government need only provide a legitimate interest in order to discriminate. Essentially, the government's interest in marriage is the promotion of a family unit and the perpetuation of the species. It can regulate it in order to ensure the health of the child (no incest), to greatly reduce the liklihood of subordination or de facto slavery (polygamy), and so forth. Since gay people biologically cannot have kids together, the government can preclude such marriages since they cannot, by definition, start families.

Now, as I said, there's all sorts of holes to shoot in that. Some states, like Arizona, allow 1st cousins to marry so long as they cannot have kids (which essentially means that the women must be at least 60), so there goes the argument that it's entirely about procreation. Likewise, between adoption and in vitro fertilization, gay couples can have kids these day, so there's another strike.

Other than that, pretty much every argument against it that I've heard is based on either A)religion, B)tradition, C)bigotry, D)all of the above.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Or you could answer les' question. Maybe I'm mocking you because you pretend to be above all that you're against, yet, in the end (just like everyone else) you really are what you don't want to be. We're all narrow minded people who don't want our opinions changed. Sometimes you get mocked for them and sometimes you get to mock others.

Kepler's the smart aleckiest of them all who'd condescend anyone just to make himself feel more important (just like Old Pio), so I find it hilarious that you think he knows how to discuss things. You have to dig through 15 layers of grandeur and self importance to get to the crux of what he's saying (which is almost always calling someone an idiot using various latin phrases). And I agree with him more often than not!

Admitting your mocking is at least a first step. Maybe you think that's a fine way of having discourse. I don't. I don't think I'm above anybody, but if folks are going to attack me, I'll certainly either push back or tune out. Old Pio can be pretty harsh on things, but no more harsh than a lot of folks who you chime in with regularly and who you never say a word about. That's what's such a crock around here. You and others only call out those who you disagree with on issues for being a certain way, but give a total free pass to folks on your side of the argument that are every bit as bad or worse. Pot, meet kettle.

On Kepler, if you paid closer attention, you'd notice that he discusses things differently with myself than he does with, say, Old Pio. Kepler and I have gone back and forth on this board for quite a number of years, so I think we realize that we disagree on a lot of things, but both of us respect where the other comes from and we don't have a lot of the yapping that maybe he has with someone harsher, like Old Pio.

[Foxton]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Maybe you think that's a fine way of having discourse. I don't.

Oh quit waffling on about poor abused you. There can be no discourse when one side (ie YOU) will never present it. Or in the case of the last time you did (to defend creationism) post it then ignore corrections.

What's that phrase? Put up or shut up? Why don't you just do the latter instead of trying to claim some philosophical high ground for ignoring requests to back up what you said.

[Bob Gray]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Oh quit waffling on about poor abused you. There can be no discourse when one side (ie YOU) will never present it. Or in the case of the last time you did (to defend creationism) post it then ignore corrections.

What's that phrase? Put up or shut up? Why don't you just do the latter instead of trying to claim some philosophical high ground for ignoring requests to back up what you said.

You go on ignore, the first person I've put there in a number of years. You just have never had anything of substance to say, and I'm tired of you following me from thread to thread, attacking me without justification.

[leswp1]

Re: The 112th Congress - The first Orange-American to be elected Speaker

Here's the least unintelligent reasoning I've heard, though it's more of a technical legal one than a moral/ethical/philisophical one. Also, there are plenty of holes to be shot through it.

Sexual orientation is not yet a protected class afforded strict scrutiny (like race/ethnicity are) under the equal protection clause, so the government need only provide a legitimate interest in order to discriminate. Essentially, the government's interest in marriage is the promotion of a family unit and the perpetuation of the species. It can regulate it in order to ensure the health of the child (no incest), to greatly reduce the liklihood of subordination or de facto slavery (polygamy), and so forth. Since gay people biologically cannot have kids together, the government can preclude such marriages since they cannot, by definition, start families.

Now, as I said, there's all sorts of holes to shoot in that. Some states, like Arizona, allow 1st cousins to marry so long as they cannot have kids (which essentially means that the women must be at least 60), so there goes the argument that it's entirely about procreation. Likewise, between adoption and in vitro fertilization, gay couples can have kids these day, so there's another strike.

Other than that, pretty much every argument against it that I've heard is based on either A)religion, B)tradition, C)bigotry, D)all of the above.

That is actually pretty interesting.