C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 1:48pm
isadore;1031441 wrote:...
Your argument has the effect of dismissing the importance of government sanctioned marriage for gays.
...
There's no doubt I am dismissing the importance of State sanctioned marriage. I am dismissing it's importance for all people including gays and heterosexuals. That's my whole point. I only wish it had the "effect" like you state it does.
I have never argued that gays should "wait for the abolition of the institution". There's no need to exaggerate my points. It creates the potential for inaccuracies while the actual opinions and statements are already available for all to see.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Dec 30, 2011 2:11pm
Really, you're seriously going to equate two dudes consenting to getting married to murder?dwccrew;1030458 wrote:Who says murder is wrong?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 2:15pm
What suggestion? I asked for clarification.isadore;1031441 wrote:...
Thank you with your suggestions on my use of the language. But there are so few pro-gay bigots out there.
What does the number of pro-gay bigots have to do with being against gay bigots?
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 2:21pm
No, you are misquoting me. Did I write that you argued for them to wait? I wrote “You also provide cover for some of their opponents who endorse your statement as a way hinder them. They can argue that gays should give up their fight for marriage and just wait for the abolition of the institution.”
No you just dismissed their fervent hope. . You wrote, “It's laughable that you thingk (sic)gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right.” Which dismisses the significance of their efforts.
No you just dismissed their fervent hope. . You wrote, “It's laughable that you thingk (sic)gaining the ability to marriage is aquiring a human right. Getting married isn't a right.” Which dismisses the significance of their efforts.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 2:26pm
I agree. I do dismiss their effort. It's the nature of my point. I thought that's been clear. I don't believe that there should be State sanctioedn marriage.
I disagree that I have dismissed their "fervent hope". I have no control over their "fervent hope". That is self determined and I have no doubt that it exists.
I disagree that I have dismissed their "fervent hope". I have no control over their "fervent hope". That is self determined and I have no doubt that it exists.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 2:29pm
No you did not...nor did state that you did. I simply made it very clear that I did not claim as much and in addition, asked that my points not be exaggerated .isadore;1031484 wrote:... Did I write that you argued for them to wait? ...
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 2:35pm
I have no control over other individuals choosing to use my, recognized as well intended by you, position in a mal-intended manner.isadore;1031484 wrote:... “You also provide cover for some of their opponents who endorse your statement as a way hinder them. ...
It would be a sign of weakness in my conviction if I simply throttled it for fear that others may use it inappropriately.
Do you believe my fervent hope of ending State sanctioned marriage should be dismissed? ...even after you recognized it as well intended?
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 3:15pm
your points cannot be exaggerated in their potential detrimental effects.Con_Alma;1031493 wrote:No you did not...nor did state that you did. I simply made it very clear that I did not claim as much and in addition, asked that my points not be exaggerated .
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 3:19pm
The first paragraph is proof that you are in opposition to the efforts of the gay community to win to what is held by the large majority of american people to be a basic right.Con_Alma;1031488 wrote:I agree. I do dismiss their effort. It's the nature of my point. I thought that's been clear. I don't believe that there should be State sanctioedn marriage.
I disagree that I have dismissed their "fervent hope". I have no control over their "fervent hope". That is self determined and I have no doubt that it exists.
the second paragraph is an exercise in sophistry.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 3:22pm
history is replete with well intended efforts that caused disaster and pain. You are accomplishing that on a small scale. An argument that would be best discussed on a thread of its own, is used to dilute and divert a discussion on basic rights for gays.Con_Alma;1031500 wrote:I have no control over other individuals choosing to use my, recognized as well intended by you, position in a mal-intended manner.
It would be a sign of weakness in my conviction if I simply throttled it for fear that others may use it inappropriately.
Do you believe my fervent hope of ending State sanctioned marriage should be dismissed? ...even after you recognized it as well intended?
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 5:25pm
I have never diminished their potential effect nor will I.isadore;1031549 wrote:your points cannot be exaggerated in their potential detrimental effects.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 5:27pm
I am indeed in opposition to any effort to further validate the merits of State sanctioned marriage requirements. I have never hid that nor denied it.isadore;1031556 wrote:The first paragraph is proof that you are in opposition to the efforts of the gay community to win to what is held by the large majority of american people to be a basic right.
the second paragraph is an exercise in sophistry.
Sophistry does not reduce accuracy but your clarification is noted.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 30, 2011 5:29pm
Disaster and pain t may indeed cause. Supporting further validation of State sanction marriage is a clear mistake and something I will opposes as much as another may fight for. That's the beauty of our opportunities in the United States...have that unalienable right.isadore;1031562 wrote:history is replete with well intended efforts that caused disaster and pain. You are accomplishing that on a small scale. An argument that would be best discussed on a thread of its own, is used to dilute and divert a discussion on basic rights for gays.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 5:47pm
You do have the unalienable right to advance an argument that undermines the effort for legalization of government sanctioned gay marriage.
Your effort to dilute support for gay marriage should be given due approbation by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman, Family Research Council and the rest of the movement to deny the basic right of marriage to gay couples.
Your effort to dilute support for gay marriage should be given due approbation by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman, Family Research Council and the rest of the movement to deny the basic right of marriage to gay couples.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 30, 2011 5:49pm
how can exaggerate the potential effect of your false flag operation.Con_Alma;1031659 wrote:I have never diminished their potential effect nor will I.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 12:19am
That's up to them. I couldn't care any less about their interest in such a viewisadore;1031675 wrote:You do have the unalienable right to advance an argument that undermines the effort for legalization of government sanctioned gay marriage.
Your effort to dilute support for gay marriage should be given due approbation by Rick Santorum, Michele Bachman, Family Research Council and the rest of the movement to deny the basic right of marriage to gay couples.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 12:20am
I apologize but I don't understand your comment or maybe question posted here.isadore;1031676 wrote:how can exaggerate the potential effect of your false flag operation.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 31, 2011 8:45am
Of course to admit it on a public forum would undermine your efforts on their behalf.Con_Alma;1032043 wrote:That's up to them. I couldn't care any less about their interest in such a view
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 8:52am
What efforts would it undermine? You're assuming that efforts exist. If you believe that I have efforts on behalf of those candidates listed you are delusional.
I can't even vote in their primary! Lol.
I can't even vote in their primary! Lol.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 31, 2011 9:12am
False Flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.Con_Alma;1032045 wrote:I apologize but I don't understand your comment or maybe question posted here.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 31, 2011 9:18am
An old political tactic is to divide the opposition by introducing an unwinnable candidate or proposition into a campaign to syphon off support. The idea of doing away with government sanctioned marriage is such an a tool for the opponents of gay marriage. It appeals to some of the less grounded in reality gay advocates and draw them draws them away from the campaign to win a basic right.
I
isadore
Posts: 7,762
Dec 31, 2011 9:22am
Again it is often impossible to judge intent but it is easy to see effect. Guessing on your intent, you are probably just a dupe in the effort to stop gay marriage.Con_Alma;1032186 wrote:What efforts would it undermine? You're assuming that efforts exist. If you believe that I have efforts on behalf of those candidates listed you are delusional.
I can't even vote in their primary! Lol.
Hopefully you are registered and do vote, Americans should.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 9:40am
Yes that repeated statement doesn't change the prior repsonses to such statement. I don't deny the effect of my position and don't appologize for it. If we are being true regarding the effect, it is nothing. My position has had and will have zero impact. I donot believe we should have STate sanction marriage requirements.
Of course I am registered to vote. May statement related to being eligible to vote in in a party's primary, of which I am not.
Of course I am registered to vote. May statement related to being eligible to vote in in a party's primary, of which I am not.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 9:41am
If you believe I have ever drawn someone away from their position or efforts you are blind to reality.isadore;1032197 wrote:An old political tactic is to divide the opposition by introducing an unwinnable candidate or proposition into a campaign to syphon off support. The idea of doing away with government sanctioned marriage is such an a tool for the opponents of gay marriage. It appeals to some of the less grounded in reality gay advocates and draw them draws them away from the campaign to win a basic right.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 31, 2011 9:42am
There's nothing covert about my efforts in any manner. I am very upfront and try to be very clear about the my position.isadore;1032194 wrote:False Flag operations are covert operations designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities.