California Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Unconstitutional, Court Says

[MacLean]

I could care less who sleeps with who, never have cared.

Marriage is public policy. Change that, fine.

Stand up and suggest the public doesn't have a right to speak about public policy, and there is where we will differ.

[MacLean]

met·a·phor   [met-uh-fawr, -fer] Show IPA
noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.” Compare mixed metaphor, simile ( def. 1 ) .
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

I think Five-O handled this suggestion already, but I did want you to have the chance to respond....

Was that metaphor intended to be a parable, an allegory, or a catechresis?

I don't think that word means what you think it means, and the definition you posted proves it.

[Rhino]

Definition of STRAW MAN

1
: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted

2
: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction

I think Five-O handled this suggestion already, but I did want you to have the chance to respond....

Was that metaphor intended to be a parable, an allegory, or a catechresis?

I don't think that word means what you think it means, and the definition you posted proves it.

While you're looking up the different type of formal logical fallacies, check ad hominem.

I'm not going to answer your questions on purpose, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[MacLean]

While you're looking up the different type of formal logical fallacies, check ad hominem.

I'm not going to answer your questions on purpose, as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I don't look them up Rhino, I've got them memorized.



Ad hominem, or "to the man" only works here if I had attempted to point out one of your negative characteristics.

[Bob Loblaw]

It's not JUST asking the gov't for permission to be married. It's asking for the ability to file joint taxes with my spouse the same as you are already allowed to do so with your wife. It's asking for the ability to have my spouse make legal medical decisions and have visitation rights if I am incapacitated in the hospital the same as your wife can make such decisions and have visitation rights. It's asking for my spouse to be able to receive my death benefits/pension if I'm killed in the line of duty the same way your wife/family is allowed to get your death benefits/pension if you are killed in the line of duty. It's asking for all these things (and many more things) that you are allowed that I am not allowed. I agree that it's not the government's business who I am partnered with. However, it is the government's business to make sure I am allowed the same rights/privileges/responsibilities/etc. as you are allowed.

this is a perfect example of why A) this is an important issue (as in, this isn't just about gay folks calling their partners "husband" or "wife" and wearing rings) and B) why this is a civil rights issue. If my wife has teh right to all the things above, then Fuzz's husband should too.

[KaiGywer]

Let's let it happen so that homosexuals can enjoy their constitutional right to be as miserable and dysfunctional as the rest of us!

One of my gay friends said this too That he should also have the right to be miserable

[Ducky]

I think consenting adults are just that, and what they want to do with each other and their lives is just fine. I don't feel the need to defend my marriage just because one of my best friends can finally marry the guy he's been with for the last 20 years. It's Hollywood marriages that are the embarrassment, the ones that the divorce papers are filed before the marriage license has had a chance to be filed, or people who wake up married to a stranger in Vegas, not the gender of the people involved. I do think it's a horrible thing that the officer who was just killed in my town left behind the love of her life that she'd been with for 25 years and unable to marry due to the small minded assholes in the government in my state, and her WIDOW can't even collect survivor's benefits. She is grieving just as much as the widow of the officer that was killed in December. She is the one the flag on the casket was given to. She is the one who now has to figure out how, after a quarter century with the same person, how to live alone. And yet the state didn't even recognize her right to make decisions as next of kin. I find that beyond contemptible, it's revolting and should be criminal.

Sandy was an exemplary officer, good enough to give her life in service to the people of this city, of this state, but the state didn't think she was good enough to allow her to marry the wonderful person she loved the most in this world.