5/2/2013 10:33 AM
That's the rule we have now. If you think that rule should be changed I have no objection. You're right, I don't think anyone would be harmed.
5/2/2013 10:34 AM
So you won't tell me.

I already answered your question, and I have told you.
 I would guess why but you'd probably go "NO! DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING ABOUT ME! YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG WHEN YOU ASSUME SOMETHING ABOUT ME! ER DERR!"

When you assume things about people you know very little about, there is a high probability you'll be wrong. If that frustrates you, don't blame me for it.

The solution is simple - don't make those assumptions. If you do, you're the one deciding to take that risk, so it's your own fault when you're wrong.
5/2/2013 10:38 AM
Posted by bistiza on 5/2/2013 10:34:00 AM (view original):
So you won't tell me.

I already answered your question, and I have told you.
 I would guess why but you'd probably go "NO! DON'T ASSUME ANYTHING ABOUT ME! YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG WHEN YOU ASSUME SOMETHING ABOUT ME! ER DERR!"

When you assume things about people you know very little about, there is a high probability you'll be wrong. If that frustrates you, don't blame me for it.

The solution is simple - don't make those assumptions. If you do, you're the one deciding to take that risk, so it's your own fault when you're wrong.
I asked you why don't you want people being confused.  You did not answer that.  And that's fine, I can't make you do anything.
5/2/2013 10:38 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
That's the rule we have now. If you think that rule should be changed I have no objection. You're right, I don't think anyone would be harmed.
Of course I'm right.    Unfortunately, you and I both know that many people would find it offensive despite being free to NOT watch it and, therefore, it will not happen any time in the near future.

Sound familiar?
5/2/2013 10:41 AM
I asked you why don't you want people being confused.  You did not answer that.

I simply don't want there to be any confusion between real marriage and homosexual unions. There is no reason beyond that, so it is effectively its own answer to "why".


5/2/2013 10:43 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 10:38:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 5/2/2013 10:33:00 AM (view original):
That's the rule we have now. If you think that rule should be changed I have no objection. You're right, I don't think anyone would be harmed.
Of course I'm right.    Unfortunately, you and I both know that many people would find it offensive despite being free to NOT watch it and, therefore, it will not happen any time in the near future.

Sound familiar?
Sure. But I don't have any objection so I wouldnt argue against it just for the sake of arguing. Which is what you're doing with gay marriage since you say you aren't against it.
5/2/2013 10:49 AM
Sure. But I don't have any objection so I wouldnt argue against it just for the sake of arguing.

The point Mike is making is that you should understand why both porn on NBC and homosexual marriage are offensive to some people, and the fact that they are offensive to some people means they may not be legal in some situations (depending upon various other factors).
5/2/2013 10:50 AM
Posted by bistiza on 5/2/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):
I asked you why don't you want people being confused.  You did not answer that.

I simply don't want there to be any confusion between real marriage and homosexual unions. There is no reason beyond that, so it is effectively its own answer to "why".


"I don't want <insert anything here>"
"Why not?"
"No reason."

Gotcha.
5/2/2013 10:52 AM
Can one not take part in an open discussion despite having no opinion either way?    I've simply pointed out the flaws in both sides.    Unfortunately, I have biz blocked, so I can only read what's quoted, and tec hasn't been nearly as vociferous in his objection as burnsyluck have been in their support.   Therefore, it appears that I'm against it.   I've simply asked for a good reason to make it universally legal.    And your "doesn't hurt anyone" and "feel free to not get gay married" applies perfectly to porn on network TV.
5/2/2013 10:56 AM
"I don't want <insert anything here>"
"Why not?"
"No reason."

Gotcha.

Except that's NOT what I said. Once again you try to twist things into what they aren't.

I said I don't want there to be confusion over the terms. The "why" was answered when I said it is because I don't like that confusion and want things to be clear.  You're taking that answer and acting like it doesn't exist and I gave no answer, which isn't true.

So the real conversation went like this:

"I don't want confusion."
"Why not?"
"Because I want the issue to be clear."

That's the answer. There is nothing more to it than that.

Or are you one of those people who keeps asking why no matter what people say? Every new answer gives you a reason to ask why all over again.  Well, I'm not playing that childish game.
5/2/2013 11:00 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/2/2013 10:52:00 AM (view original):
Can one not take part in an open discussion despite having no opinion either way?    I've simply pointed out the flaws in both sides.    Unfortunately, I have biz blocked, so I can only read what's quoted, and tec hasn't been nearly as vociferous in his objection as burnsyluck have been in their support.   Therefore, it appears that I'm against it.   I've simply asked for a good reason to make it universally legal.    And your "doesn't hurt anyone" and "feel free to not get gay married" applies perfectly to porn on network TV.
Well, there are a couple big differences between your porn example and gay marriage.

Porn is still legal. People who want to watch it can. Also, no one gets to watch it on network television. It isn't ok for some and prohibited for others. The law is applied equally.

Gay marriage isn't legal in many places. Gay people that want to get married can't. While straight people still get to marry. The law is applied unequally.

5/2/2013 11:11 AM
Porn is still legal. People who want to watch it can.

Gay sex is still legal. People who want to have it can.
Gay people that want to get married can't. While straight people still get to marry. The law is applied unequally.
Everyone can get married equally, even gay people - it just has to be to someone of the opposite gender.

The law IS applied equally - just not how some people want it to be applied.


5/2/2013 11:14 AM
You do understand the fundamental difference between M/W and M/M or W/W marriage, right?   Assuming you do, quit pretending that they are the same.   They simply aren't.   Therefore, the law is NOT applied unequally.    It is different laws for different situations. 

And please don't say "But interracial...." because that is not the same as SSM.     It simply isn't.
5/2/2013 11:15 AM
Posted by bistiza on 5/2/2013 10:56:00 AM (view original):
"I don't want <insert anything here>"
"Why not?"
"No reason."

Gotcha.

Except that's NOT what I said. Once again you try to twist things into what they aren't.

I said I don't want there to be confusion over the terms. The "why" was answered when I said it is because I don't like that confusion and want things to be clear.  You're taking that answer and acting like it doesn't exist and I gave no answer, which isn't true.

So the real conversation went like this:

"I don't want confusion."
"Why not?"
"Because I want the issue to be clear."

That's the answer. There is nothing more to it than that.

Or are you one of those people who keeps asking why no matter what people say? Every new answer gives you a reason to ask why all over again.  Well, I'm not playing that childish game.
"I don't want confusion" and "I want the issue to be clear" is saying the same thing.  It's ok if you don't want to give an actual answer.  
5/2/2013 11:22 AM
"I don't want confusion" and "I want the issue to be clear" is saying the same thing.  It's ok if you don't want to give an actual answer. 

They're not the same thing, but fine, I'll give you several reasons so you'll shut up about it.

I want a clearly defined meaning for the word marriage, without confusion as to what the genders of the partners are. I want to be able to hear someone say "I'm married" and know that their partner is someone of the opposite gender, and I want to be able to say "I'm married" and convey that my partner is of the opposite gender without having to specify. The word itself should be able to make that distinction.

I also don't understand why homosexuals have to do everything exactly like heterosexuals. It goes beyond wanting it to be called marriage and into other things too, such as in many homosexual couples one acts more masculine and one acts more feminine. Why? There's no reason for it.
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.