NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Skeba]

It's a tough question. The use of an extreme example I think.

For some, it might be exactly that, that turns someone away from the point itself. A person reads someones post to a certain point, sees an example like that, totally misinterprits the point and the whole post for that matter, and flames the shit out of the original poster. But that, I think, is in a way very similar to what happened with Kerry's words the other day. Repubplicans took his words out of context and since the wording was not the best possible, they attacked the point taken out of the context and the whole point was lost. I believe it is a more a question of not wanting to understand something, than not actually understanding it.

BerkleyRiot's example was over the top (though I don't mind). I admit doing that sometimes myself. Especially if I'm not that fond of the opposing side. Sort of throwing a bait to see if someone actually understands the point or just grabs the hook without seeing beyond that. I don't think using an extreme example undermines the point every time though. Like in this example. It might at first though. A persons reaction at first might be directed more towards the example if he/she doesn't think it's acceptable or politically correct. But after explaining the point in more detail (in the following posts), the opposing side will be more commited to reading the posts, and maybe understanding the original point better. Though there's always the part of the people that after the first post will only be commited to searching flaws in the opposite side's latter posts even more instead of actually listening. But those type of people will be very hard to convince no matter what you say (not talking about you pilferk since you obviously do understand the point, just don't agree with the presentation). They've usually based on their opinion on the poster itself rather than the subject already before the original post. This opinion comes usually from past behaviour in previous threads, or the differences in views on other issues (usually people who post in these threads are people who've been posting here for some time).

It's a tough

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

to go back on subject:
what are you defending here :
sanctity of marriage ?
heterosexual lifestyle?
perenity of human race ?

[The Dog]

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!

tough call.  in my opinion i don't think the majority should always rule.  The rights of the minority have to be protected as well.  I'm going to assume that the majority of people back in the day didn't want woman voting or non-whites voting - yet I don't think anyone here will argue that those were bad ideas. 

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!

I'm going to assume that the majority of people back in the day didn't want woman voting or non-whites voting - yet I don't think anyone here will argue that those were bad ideas. 

well it depends ...

[Bud Fox]

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!

Who gives a rat's ass.

Everybody should have equal rights in America.

We have more important things to vote on.

[Brody]

One question! Why don't we take this out of the courts and put it on the ballots? Why? how do you think the American people would vote for it?

Once Again I due not intend to offend anyone!

Who gives a rat's ass.

Everybody should have equal rights in America.

We have more important things to vote on.

Who Gives a rats ass? Maybe the American Public? Majority rules with respect for minority rights, does not mean you can circumvent the publics right to have an opinion and vote on this. Instead of going directly to the courts maybe we should direct this with the people of this country, Not Activist and Conservative judges. If the people with that feel strongly enough about this would spend half the time and effort to maybe inform the public about there cause I believe they would be alot farther then they are currently.

Now budfox why don't you go sling some half ass insults around!

[SLCPUNK]

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

[Surfrider]

Apparently it' s you having a hard time grasping the point....which doesn't surprise me all things considered. And now you're backpedaling on earlier statements because they prove my point.? And I'm convinced it's has nothing to do with ability and everything to do with desire.? But I'm not going to continue to argue in circles.? I'm sure you WISH to think my dissent has no merit but....I think it's obvious, all things considered, that it does.

I understand your argument quite well. I understand the point you were trying to make (there are two seperate moral decisions, one more reprehensible than the other...the legislature should decide which, not the courts).? It's just irresponsibly constructed using inflamatory examples simply to pander to readers you don't respect.? That's it, in a nutshell.? I'm characterizing it exactly as you have presented it, and explained it, and then using the motive you admitted to....not to mention you have, in previous posts, admitted to every bit of it.? You're waving a sensationalistic example around simply becasue it's sensationalistic and inflamatory (which you admitted and now backpedal from)....rather than because it illustrates your argument strongly.? The example you use, and the comparison it conjures, is offensive and unneccessary.? But you knew that when you constructed the argument in the first place (and admitted as much).....and thought it added some sort of weight to the point.? It doesn't.? In fact, the intellectual dishonesty of doing so detracts and obfuscates your point.

Again, you go back to the point itself.? I'm not arguing the point.? I'm arguing the way it was presented and the examples used to illustrate it....you're pandering, not solely making a point, and using examples to draw attention to the point (really, to the examples), rather than MAKE the point.

I have demonstrated, quite well, your argument was poorly constructed, I think.? YOUR OPINION is that I did not....I can live with that, all things considered.? I think my dissent has merit.? Your opinoin is that it doesn't.? Again, I can live with that, all things considered.? I had little hope of changing your mind from the get go....

As for the construction of your argument....you can argue "false premise" all you want.? But the original is there, for everyone to see, as is the resulting discussion....and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak, as are your admissions to doing exactly as I assert (though you've backpeddled now on one of your statements).? I think, as an assertion, that's all the proof I need to validate MY point.

And with that....I've made my point.? We're arguing in circles now.....

We are arguing in circles.  I believe you have completely missed the point, and you are simply regurgitating your previous argument instead of stating how the example was offensive in the context I presented it in.  You have simply failed to address it.  Insted, you continue to make conclusory assertions. 

Again, I shouldn't have said that it was meant to be inflammatory.  That is not what I meant.  If you don't believe me, so be it.  As I explained earlier, I simply used the strongest example to prove my point. 

[Brody]

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

[Axl4Prez2004]

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

 How does bringing unwanted children into the world make the world a better place?  I'm no expert but I can abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you 9 times out of 10 the unwanted kid will be more likely to fuck our world up.Unloved children are a burden on society.  Handicapped children are not a burden, the real burden is unloved children. 

 Bad parents create bad children, and bad children become bad adults.  No child brought into this world by parents that love and care for the baby inside and outside the womb is a bad kid.  They're all good.  However, parents that don't want kids...parents that have kids to keep up with the Jones's...parents that aren't involved in their kids' lives...parents that care more about their socio-economic status than their kids' lives...parents that don't know how to use birth control...these parents create shitty kids.  9 times out of 10, scratch that, 100% of abortions (when not medically necessary or if in response to rape) are due to irresponsible acts.  Do you really want a higher ratio of irresponsible parents to responsible parents to exist?  That's not a good plan to create a better society.

 I've said it before, I'll say it again, in time technology will devise a way to eliminate the chance of fertilization with sex.  In 100 years, the only folks making babies the old-fashioned way will live in 3rd world countries, or belong to organized religions that will gently force them to have babies the way "god" intended them to have babies. 

[Brody]

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

 How does bringing unwanted children into the world make the world a better place?  I'm no expert but I can abso-fucking-lutely guarantee you 9 times out of 10 the unwanted kid will be more likely to fuck our world up.Unloved children are a burden on society.  Handicapped children are not a burden, the real burden is unloved children. 

 Bad parents create bad children, and bad children become bad adults.  No child brought into this world by parents that love and care for the baby inside and outside the womb is a bad kid.  They're all good.  However, parents that don't want kids...parents that have kids to keep up with the Jones's...parents that aren't involved in their kids' lives...parents that care more about their socio-economic status than their kids' lives...parents that don't know how to use birth control...these parents create shitty kids.  9 times out of 10, scratch that, 100% of abortions (when not medically necessary or if in response to rape) are due to irresponsible acts.  Do you really want a higher ratio of irresponsible parents to responsible parents to exist?  That's not a good plan to create a better society.

 I've said it before, I'll say it again, in time technology will devise a way to eliminate the chance of fertilization with sex.  In 100 years, the only folks making babies the old-fashioned way will live in 3rd world countries, or belong to organized religions that will gently force them to have babies the way "god" intended them to have babies. 

My point was not to bring up the abortion debate because i really dont think anyone here knows my pov on the issue. It was simply to prove his hypocrisies.

[SLCPUNK]

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

What does that have to do with gay rights? 

[Axl4Prez2004]

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

What does that have to do with gay rights??

I think he might be admitting that homosexuality can be present in utero!   Just kidding, everybody knows that homosexuals make the choice to be gay.  They make the choice to live as 2nd-class citizens.  (sarcasm alert!    )

[Bud Fox]

What a gaggle of focking hypocrites.

Fox is going to start selling crank to GOP evangelical base soon. Please place an extra few bucks in the collection plate this week, cold medicine is getting harder to get a hold of.

[Brody]

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

What does that have to do with gay rights? 

down.

You should not have to vote on basic human rights.

In America we are all entitled to them.

I know you hate to hear that.

Does the unborn child have a say in his human rights?

You say that everyone is entitled to basic human rights, but your blind to your own hypocrisies.

[Brody]

What a gaggle of focking hypocrites.

Fox is going to start selling crank to GOP evangelical base soon. Please place an extra few bucks in the collection plate this week, cold medicine is getting harder to get a hold of.

smooth one little boy. I hope some day you find that your pointless godless life leads you to some purpose.

[pilferk]

We are arguing in circles.? I believe you have completely missed the point, and you are simply regurgitating your previous argument instead of stating how the example was offensive in the context I presented it in.? You have simply failed to address it.? Insted, you continue to make conclusory assertions.?

And I believe the exact same of you (though I don't think you MISSED the point, I just feel you don't want to address it)...that's why I said we were arguing in circles.? It's not that I've failed to address it, it's that you don't want to see the point I've made.? Fair enough.

Again, I feel I've made? my point to anyone objectively reading the discussion.? Others (like Skeba, for example) seem to have "gotten the point" quite easily, so I have no thoughts I haven't presented my point well.? Your reaction to it, all things considered, isn't surprising.

Oh, and on the "inflamatory" thing...you're right, I don't believe you.? Sorry, I just don't. And I don't think many others reading this thread will, either.?It was a clear and decisive admission when you made it.  I think you're backpedaling because it so clearly illustrates my point.....

[SLCPUNK]

You say that everyone is entitled to basic human rights, but your blind to your own hypocrisies.

Great, I got that already..............

When did I say anything about abortion ?

[SLCPUNK]

What a gaggle of focking hypocrites.

Fox is going to start selling crank to GOP evangelical base soon. Please place an extra few bucks in the collection plate this week, cold medicine is getting harder to get a hold of.

smooth one little boy. I hope some day you find that your pointless godless life leads you to some purpose.

I think he has: pointing out hypocrites like yourself................

Why do you keep calling him boy? I'm pretty sure he is old enough to be your Daddy.

[Brody]

What a gaggle of focking hypocrites.

Fox is going to start selling crank to GOP evangelical base soon. Please place an extra few bucks in the collection plate this week, cold medicine is getting harder to get a hold of.

smooth one little boy. I hope some day you find that your pointless godless life leads you to some purpose.

I think he has: pointing out hypocrites like yourself................

Why do you keep calling him boy? I'm pretty sure he is old enough to be your Daddy.

well when you act childish people will treat you like a child, now go play.