Gay Marriage OFFTOPIC Mike v Hyde

[Mike Cash]

I can't wait so see her rant when she learns there are states which have laws against fornication.

[Mike Cash]

There is a big difference between making a sexual POSITION illegal/legel and actual types of sexual RELATIONSHIPS. Why do you keep making these broad connections with things like this? I never said a thing about inter-person sexual relationships, I was talking about a sexual position. Stop trying to make it sound as though I am saying things that I am not please.

Didn't read the paragraph below it, did you?

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Yes, actually I did. That doesn't mean I can't take offense to what you said, meant in jest or otherwise.

[Mike Cash]

Yes, actually I did. That doesn't mean I can't take offense to what you said, meant in jest or otherwise.

It also doesn't mean you can't ignore it in order to be able to be offended by it, apparently.

Here's a little pop quiz:

What do you think my position on gay marriage is?

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I am not the type to ignore something that bothers me, sorry.

What's your position on gay marriage? I really couldn't give a s**t. However, to appease you I will say this much, the obvious answer to your question would be to say you're against it. But if that were the case you wouldn't be asking, now would you because it would be, well, a stupid question. So the logical answer is to say that you aren't against it. But then how could I know since you haven't told me? And frankly I don't care. I disagree with the things you say, the fact that you're pro/anti has nothing to do with my reactions to your posts it is the posts themselves.

[Mike Cash]

That is a very encouraging answer. You are right; I haven't told you.

But before I asked the question and made you notice that, were you operating on the assumption that we have opposite opinions?

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Did just miss the last part of that paragraph? Apparently. Your actual standing on the matter has no bearing on my reactions to what you say, it is the very things you say themselves, they and they alone. I do not care what your standing on the matter is and it had nothing to do with how I responded to your posts. That clear enough for you?

[Mike Cash]

Did just miss the last part of that paragraph? Apparently. Your actual standing on the matter has no bearing on my reactions to what you say, it is the very things you say themselves, they and they alone. I do not care what your standing on the matter is and it had nothing to do with how I responded to your posts. That clear enough for you?

What is even more clear is that you are unable to engage in a rational discussion with adults without flying into a rage.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

What is even more clear is that you are unable to engage in a rational discussion with adults without flying into a rage.

Where do you people get this idea that I get into "rages"? I wasn't swearing, using too many ! marks to be at natural or anything like that. I wasn't even upset. You seem to be incapable have having a conversation were someone disagrees with you without thinking they're just off their rocker or "in a rage" just because they don't agree with you.

[Mike Cash]

Where do you people get this idea that I get into "rages"?

I wasn't aware that we people got that idea. I thought maybe it was just me.

I wasn't swearing, using too many ! marks to be at natural or anything like that. I wasn't even upset. You seem to be incapable have having a conversation were someone disagrees with you without thinking they're just off their rocker or "in a rage" just because they don't agree with you.

Alright. You don't go into rages. Just tirades.

[No-name]

C'mon Mike, stop fighting it and surrender to your true feelings. You love me as deeply as I love you. I can't stand to think of living another day without you for the rest of my life. Marry me.

While I am here, does anyone have an explanation for why all the threads in the serious discussion part of the member's lounge are now in the Europe Forum? Even American Issues are now in Europe? Has there been a shift in government that I don't know about?

[Mike Cash]

C'mon Mike, stop fighting it and surrender to your true feelings. You love me as deeply as I love you. I can't stand to think of living another day without you for the rest of my life. Marry me.

There have been countless times over the last 20 years when some irritating words or deeds from my wife have prompted me to say, "Next time, I'm marrying a guy!" I will keep your proposal in mind.

While I am here, does anyone have an explanation for why all the threads in the serious discussion part of the member's lounge are now in the Europe Forum? Even American Issues are now in Europe? Has there been a shift in government that I don't know about?

Only Europeans are serious. They're also the main ones interested in discussing American issues on what used to be a Japan-themed forum.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Again just because something is said in jest does not mean people can't take offense to it. It's like bad race jokes, they're jokes but you can still get pissed over them. A joke in bad taste is still just plain bad taste joke or not.

Alright. You don't go into rages. Just tirades

Ya know what, if you are seriously that hellbent on making me out to be a loose canon then go right ahead. But the truth of the matter is, you have yet to see me in an actual "tirade" no one here has actually. If you think the things I'm saying now are tirades then you have obviously never been witness to a real one. In all honesty, I think I might have had a right to blow a gasket at you but I didn't, I could have yelled insults at you but I didn't, I could have attacked you personally instead of keeping it to politics but I didn't. You have no idea just how nasty I can be and I've tried to keep it that way throughout this discussion. But you just keep pushing and pushing as though you want me to go into an actual tirade. Well sorry, you won't get your wish. 'Cause I'm not about to loose it over you.
And I still think the reason you wanna make me seem like a loose canon is 'cause you just can't stand the idea that someone in complete control of her faculties could possibly disagree with you. You seem to take disagreement highly personally when all it is, is disagreement, plain and simple. It's nothing personal and it doesn't equal someone having a temper problem either.

[Mike Cash]

I don't want you to lose your temper. To the contrary, I would dearly love to see you learn to better focus your posts and thereby increase your chances of bringing people who disagree with you around to your way of thinking. I believe I have so stated at least two or three times.

You're good at preaching to the choir, but the choir already votes the way you do (or will, when you turn 18). It is those whose opinions differ whom you need to influence. Rationality and focus are what it takes to do that. For better or worse, emotional appeals don't do the trick.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

That first paragraph comes across as more of a bate then sincarity.

If your opinions and mine are so "smiliar" then why is that we don't agree? In the end we both might support the same thing however that does not mean our actual opinions are the same.

And I am sorry that I cannot be a stone cold debater, truly I am. I wish I could just switch off my emotions, it would save me a lot of pain. But if I did that, that would make me no different from the bigots I so loath who can't see others as human beings just because they don't live the way they do and it would make me something less then human. So actually, now that I think about it, even if I could switch off my emotions I wouldn't. I would rather remain human then join those I stand against.
"Rationality and focus" I am rational and I am focused just not in the way YOU would like me to be. Just because someone is different does not mean they do not posses such things and just because they imploy them differently then you do does not mean they don't exist.

[strongvoicesforward]

Emotions are quite fine to employ as a tool in debates or advancing social issues. Courts, jugdes and juries are often swayed by the emotions that come forth. They may give lip service to the evidence, but the emotions of a 6 year old child who bravely agrees to testify on the stand through tears while recalling a viscious rape from someone will sway the onlookers.

If the facts were the only thing that was valued, all juries would be supplied with just transcripts of the words.

That is but one example. There are many.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Thank you. I needed that, truly. Thank you.

[Mike Cash]

That first paragraph comes across as more of a bate then sincarity.

I am saddened that you have trouble taking me at my word.

If your opinions and mine are so "smiliar" then why is that we don't agree? In the end we both might support the same thing however that does not mean our actual opinions are the same.

Two people can disagree about which road to take to the same destination.

For example:

I don't think there is anywhere in the Constitution a right to gay marriage or abortion. The closest thing I can find is the 10th Amendment, which reserves such decisions to the individual states to decide. This is not to say that I think either gay marriage or abortion should necessarily be outlawed. Just that I don't think there is any way to find a constitutional right for them.

I think the road to take is to change people's hearts and minds and institute change through the legislative process. Others, perhaps including yourself, see the matter as a fundamental human rights issue and believe the courts can/should find those rights embodied in some portion of the Bill of Rights.

And I am sorry that I cannot be a stone cold debater, truly I am. I wish I could just switch off my emotions, it would save me a lot of pain. But if I did that, that would make me no different from the bigots I so loath who can't see others as human beings just because they don't live the way they do and it would make me something less then human.

I wouldn't want you to be devoid of emotions or untrue to yourself.

So actually, now that I think about it, even if I could switch off my emotions I wouldn't. I would rather remain human then join those I stand against.

Those with whom you disagree are no less human than yourself. And it isn't necessary to "join" them. It is only necessary to appeal to them to come around to your way of thinking. So long as the majority are either satisfied with the status quo or are moving toward making changes in it in a direction not to your liking, the onus will be on the minority to be the ones changing hearts and minds. The other side need do nothing but (continue to) ignore your side.

To increase the chances of changing their hearts and minds and thereby bring about the changes you desire, it is helpful to be able to present your side in a manner they are more open to listening to and more likely to be able to bring themselves to accepting.

"Rationality and focus" I am rational and I am focused just not in the way YOU would like me to be. Just because someone is different does not mean they do not posses such things and just because they imploy them differently then you do does not mean they don't exist.

The key isn't ME. I'm trying to point out how to have a greater effect when presenting your ideas and motivating toward change when interacting with the people who actively oppose gay marriage. As far as I personally am concerned, I admire your passion. I thought I had made that clear, but I guess I failed.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

I think the road to take is to change people's hearts and minds and institute change through the legislative process. Others, perhaps including yourself, see the matter as a fundamental human rights issue and believe the courts can/should find those rights embodied in some portion of the Bill of Rights.

When did I ever say that you could find the "right to gay marriage" in the Bill of Rights? You can't. But here's the rub, the Bill of Rights was written a very, very, VERY LONG time ago and if we went by the rights and only the rights in the Bill of Rights then I know a few women and blacks who would be protesting right about now. So, going by what you're saying, no right that is not in the Bill of Rights should stand as a human right. Which would leave us in an even more f**ked up world then the one we currently live in, which is a scary thought since the world's pretty f**ked as 'tis.

To increase the chances of changing their hearts and minds and thereby bring about the changes you desire, it is helpful to be able to present your side in a manner they are more open to listening to and more likely to be able to bring themselves to accepting.

Tell me, have you ever been on the receiving end of homophobia? Do you know what it is like to be objectifide and not even seen as something human? Have you ever had someone tell you that you are going to hell with all the rapists and pedaphiles? Have you ever had people treat you as though you are no more human then the dirt in their yard? I'm sorry, but after having gone through that myself it is a little difficult for me to smile pretty for the camera, so to speak. And here's the problem, why are Christians going to listening to a morally bankrupt homosexual who's gonig to Hell even if she does present her case in the manner you think she should? They don't hear us, no matter what we say they won't listen. Because in their eyes we are nothing but sinners and perverts on a fast track to Hell.

As far as I personally am concerned, I admire your passion. I thought I had made that clear, but I guess I failed.

No, sorry, that was completely lost on me. It's hard to think someone admires you when they're openingly bashing you. But hey, that could just be me. I'm sure there's lots of people who take insults as a way of showing admiration.

[Mike Cash]

When did I ever say that you could find the "right to gay marriage" in the Bill of Rights? You can't.

You didn't say that it isn't in there. But since all you did when I earlier mentioned neither the "right" to abortion nor the "right" to gay marriage are in the Constitution was to have something that bore a remarkable resemblance to what is vulgarly known as a "hissy fit", how was I to know?

This is what I've been trying to get across to you. You're not going to change any minds like that. Pointing me to the 9th Amendment, on the other hand....that would be a different story.

But here's the rub, the Bill of Rights was written a very, very, VERY LONG time ago and if we went by the rights and only the rights in the Bill of Rights then I know a few women and blacks who would be protesting right about now.

Please see:

Article 5
9th Amendment
13th Amendment
14th Amendment
15th Amendment
19th Amendment
24th Amendment

So, going by what you're saying, no right that is not in the Bill of Rights should stand as a human right.

Please see:

9th Amendment

Tell me, have you ever been on the receiving end of homophobia?

Not being homosexual myself, no.

Do you know what it is like to be objectifide and not even seen as something human?

Since before you were born, dear friend. I'm a gaijin. Unlike sexual orientation, I can't hide it.

Have you ever had someone tell you that you are going to hell with all the rapists and pedaphiles?

I have a policy of not allowing myself to be defined by the smallness of others.

Have you ever had people treat you as though you are no more human then the dirt in their yard?

Yes.

I'm sorry, but after having gone through that myself it is a little difficult for me to smile pretty for the camera, so to speak. And here's the problem, why are Christians going to listening to a morally bankrupt homosexual who's gonig to Hell even if she does present her case in the manner you think she should? They don't hear us, no matter what we say they won't listen. Because in their eyes we are nothing but sinners and perverts on a fast track to Hell.

I think that someday perhaps you will come to realize that Christians aren't a one-size-fits-all proposition.

No, sorry, that was completely lost on me. It's hard to think someone admires you when they're openingly bashing you. But hey, that could just be me. I'm sure there's lots of people who take insults as a way of showing admiration.

I said I admire your passion. If you realize that isn't a blanket endorsement then you will see there is no inherent inconsistency or hypocrisy involved when and if I disagree on other aspects.

And, yes, I do think you've gotten your nose inordinately out of joint over our exchanges and see no real point in continuing them further.

[Mike Cash]

The feeling is mutual, I assure you. I've tried to talk to you like an adult and now realize the folly of that. Right to the end I've tried to have a reasoned discussion with you, only to be met with combative juvenile replies and suspicions of my motives.

And don't flatter yourself into thinking you have "hit" me with anything. Nor should you think you know your way around the legal system any too well. You'll need a lot more trips around the sun before either of those come to pass.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Proofread.

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

Well, since we have a whole section to ourselves now (*roll of the eyes*)

The words "older" and "wiser" are not Synonyms for each other. Just because you have been around longer then someone does not mean you are any more mature or wise then they are and vise versa. Age and knowledge, wisdom, maturity etc don't go hand in hand. Matter of fact some of the most immature people I know are adults.

And you know, I said we BOTH knew our way around the system, that includes you. I credited you on your knowledge. But what did you do? Insult my knowledge and speak down to me. If I had done the same thing, well, I could just see the rant coming. But I didn't do that, now did I? You, on the other hand, went on a "I'm older then you so hahahahah!" ego trip.

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.

[Mike Cash]

Last bit of unsolicited advice on posting: Rich gifts wax poor when givers prove unkind.

‚Ì‚µ‚ð•t‚¯‚Ä‚»‚Á‚­‚è•Ô‚µ‚Ü‚·

I'm trying to understand how this rated breaking off into a new thread.

I especially don't appreciate that it makes it look as though I instigated the thread. No real reason, just that I normally don't start threads.

[Kinsao]

I think the reason why this was broken off was because the original 'homosexuality and gay marriage' thread had turned into something of a dualogue, so maybe someone thought that it might discourage other people from posting in the thread, so they decided to put your discussion in another thread.

I've forgotten what you were debating to begin with. Was it that Hyde thinks gay couples ought to be allowed (legally, I mean) to get married, and Mike doesn't? (Because I didn't get the impression that Mike is 'against' gay marriage... although I might be wrong... correct me if so. ^^) Or was it about a legal point relating to that? (I don't know the first thing about American/US laws... ><)

[Hyde_is_my_anti-drug]

We're debating technicalities in the Legal System regarding Gay Marriage. As well as each other's core beliefs it would seem.