Virginia bans homosexual civil unions

[Donut]

You quoted it as "fact". I pointed out that I could drive a bus through it.

Likewise, you are now claiming that a "pro gay legislation attorney" cited it. Can we have a name or a link so that we can put it into some context.

[promethius9594]

the court case i cited above has the name of the case, lawrence v. texas. the brief is public record, if you think i'm lying YOU look it up. you havent PROVEN anything, other than to say that you doubt the source. thats not proof, its logical fallacy.

[Donut]

Originally posted by promethius9594: the court case i cited above has the name of the case, lawrence v. texas. the brief is public record, if you think i'm lying YOU look it up. you havent PROVEN anything, other than to say that you doubt the source. thats not proof, its logical fallacy.

If you are going to present things as facts then you should provide a link to the source. I'm not going to bother to find it, I'll just treat it with the contempt it deserves.

BTW - you are very good at putting words into people's mouths. Where exactly did I say you were a LIAR?

Where did I say that I DOUBT the source?

[Azred]

Regardless of the exact number (the exact numbers are irrelevant in this instance), it suffices to say that homosexuals constitute a minority of the population. That being said, "gay marriage" is a minor social issue; the fact that so many people keep talking about it in the news is illogical. On the other hand, the hippies in the 1960s were a very small minority but captured a lot of media attention....
Homosexuals already have the ability to insure one another, own joint property, etc. and also have every other normal benefit of a traditional marriage except the ability to procreate. A marriage license is important to them, I don't doubt, but it really won't earn them any true victory. "Congratulations, Jim and Bob, you're now legally married. Now what?"

[Timber Loftis]

Homosexuals already have the ability to insure one another, own joint property, etc. and also have every other normal benefit of a traditional marriage except the ability to procreate.

Really? Where? Just curious.

[ 05-26-2004, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Timber Loftis]

Donut, what exactly has gotten your rainbow panties in a wad this morning? It doesn't appear as if he's just making shit up. This is a "discussion" board, if you think someone's facts are questionable, go do your own damned research and refute them. Quit sitting back and (1) playing peanut gallery and (2) demanding forms in triplicate to back every fact asserted. Sorry to bash you about this, but it seems you're making a lot of hubbub over very little.

I think 2% could be accurate -- of course where I live, it's a lot more, and I'd say in the heart of the bible belt, it's a lot less. Of course people will always lie, but since censuses are anonymous, I don't know that it would be particularly succeptable to such lies/fraud.

[promethius9594]

If you are going to present things as facts then you should provide a link to the source. I'm not going to bother to find it, I'll just treat it with the contempt it deserves.

its a legal breif!!! im not going to take the time to research a legal breif and provide you a direct link when i already provided you the name and... wait, yes... the page number and the footnote number.

second, its a fact. its the best available statistic out there. if you need to treat fact with contempt in order to strengthen your arguement thats fine... so long as you understand that the 10% claim is bogus.

BTW - you are very good at putting words into people's mouths. Where exactly did I say you were a LIAR?

BTW, you seem to be good at the same, especially since i never claimed that you called me a liar. in fact, what i said was if you think im lying you can look it up. theres a very clear difference.

Where did I say that I DOUBT the source?

well, you know, when you call a source contemptable and say that you cant believe it without a direct *ahem* internet link to it, that would generally be considered doubting the source. i could fake a legal breif and provide you a link if you want... or you could just look it up yourself and be sure of YOUR source... or hell, you could even order a copy of the complete breif from the supreme court.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Quit sitting back and (1) playing peanut gallery and (2) demanding forms in triplicate to back every fact asserted. Sorry to bash you about this, but it seems you're making a lot of hubbub over very little. I think 2% could be accurate -- of course where I live, it's a lot more, and I'd say in the heart of the bible belt, it's a lot less. Of course people will always lie, but since censuses are anonymous, I don't know that it would be particularly succeptable to such lies/fraud.

Now don't be telling me what to do Timber, I know you're a bit of an old woman but the post of my mother has been taken.

I was just pointing out that there is a good reason why this particular statistic is questionable. I'm not demanding forms in triplicate but I WOULD like to know the context that this guy quoted the statistic. It's not a lot to ask really.

BTW - my panties are NOT rainbow coloured, just the normal white with brown stripes.

Interesting about your census being anonymous - ours isn't. Another small cultural difference that I was unaware of.

(damn - finished the sentence with a preposition, hope Melusine doesn't pick up on it)

[Timber Loftis]

Another small cultural difference of which you were unaware would be the preferred grammatic?

Such innane grammar rules are simply something up with which I will not put! [img]tongue.gif[/img] (plaigarism alert!)

[ 05-26-2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Cloudbringer]

Just a reminder, I know this is a very controversial/sensitive topic, but as always, we need to keep it in perspective and debate the topic not one another. Try not to assume the worst about individuals just because you don't see eye to eye on a particular subject. It makes interaction easier. [img]smile.gif[/img]

And now that I have that image of Donut's panties in my head....ack!