Conservative pro-traditional marriage clown visited an escor

[IJ]

Let's recap your arguments and claims:

1) You think separate and equal is ok when it comes to DP vs marriage, and in fact, since those are not equal, you like separate and unequal. Or you just want to argue, because you've already said you're for equal marriage.

2) You, via long distance mindmeld, have magically determined that I'm lying when I say I want Congress to pass fair legislation

3) The effectiveness of arguments can be determined by tallying regions where the argument has become legal reality. For example, the beliefs and arguments of citizens of British colonies shortly before the revolutionary war were 100% invalid because all the colonies were still under British control.

4) I'm using stupid arguments for equal marriage, and you know there are better ones, but of course, you won't divulge them; your role here is to be annoying and critical rather than to produce anything new, useful, or insightful, and of course to demand answers to your questions, but never to answer any questions yourself.

5) You're on my side, and you're just calling me dishonest, blind, and basically moronic to help out your friends, for whom you really want to be a best man, altho, per #1, you might as well make them get a CU or DP (or move somewhere they can then do it) and slap together an approximation of marriage after hundreds to thousands in legal fees. Brilliant!

You know, if you want to find several people to agree with all this nonsense, you might try extending your feats of illogic and counting you, yourself, and cxt separately. THEN you'd have 2 people to share your impressions with, although it would still make no difference. Goodbye

[cxt]

IJ

Nope, YOUR the guy that thinks that "seperate but equal" is NOT "OK" in ANY form then uses BOTH current "seperate but equal" legal practices (DP/CU) to try and bolster his case in the wide acceptance of gay marriage.

(the worst possible spin on my ACTUAL arguement/intent would be that "seperate but equal" in terms of DP/CU provides the same or nearly so LEGAL rights/responsobilties, so the arguments about gay marriage need to find OTHER grounds for GREATER traction---a very different thing than your spin on what I said.)

My personal feelings are essentially irrelevent to the quality of the arguements being extended.

Nope, a quick State count--simple math, proves that such arguments for gay marriage have simply NOT proven themselves effective in the real world.
And unless and until people accept that, the chances are pretty good that those personally involeved will be waiting EVEN LONGER than they have had to wait so far, for things to change.

Nope, I'm in favor of your GOALS--not "you" personally.
From where I sit, your interaction with me is merely more proof that the issue has a SERIOUS and crippling PR problem on the "pro gay marriage" side.
Snide and insulting does not endear ANYONE to your cause,
and in fact makes things worse.

In any case, I've been plenty of help already--if you take the time to think things thu.
I have also already, rather pointedly, pointed you, in the direction of 3 serious problems.

1-Attempting to force social change thu the courts, and the attendent MULTIPLE problems there-of.

2-A pretty serious PR problem

3-Poorly performing arguements.

All you have done is essenetially re-play the game that was lost last week--while failing to come up with new plays for the NEXT game.

And yes, in my opinion, your being intellectually dishonest. Some of your statements/claims contridict each other--you say one thing BUT you do quite something else--BUT when called on it you deny that your doing it.

-Such as when you deny that your trying to force social change thu the courts BUT the vast weight of your arguments and posts deal with LEGAL challanges and COURT cases.

-Or when you state essentially state that "seperate but equal" is NOT accpetable and quite possible might be illegal--then use that EXACT ratonal to try and artifically up your "count" of States that allow gay marriage.

To me that is intellectually dishonest.

BTW this is at least the 2nd time you have indicated that your ending this discussion.

All I'm doing is replying to you.

So if its over--then let it BE over.

[IJ]

"Nope, YOUR the guy that thinks that "seperate but equal" is NOT "OK" in ANY form then uses BOTH current "seperate but equal" legal practices (DP/CU) to try and bolster his case in the wide acceptance of gay marriage."

Don't take this the wrong way, but this logic of yours is so misguided I really didn't know what you meant. It's frankly hard to believe. Let's take it point by point.

1) Yes, I said separate but equal was bad. This is how I, and presumably almost every other American, feels.

2) I did NOT then equate DP/CU with marriage when counting states--this is where you lost touch with the thread. I said that they were relevant. And they are relevant. Here's why:

3) Just because I don't consider parallel DP/CU laws perfect or ideal does NOT mean that I think they're meaningless. That would be, you know, an absurd thing for you to assume. For example, let's say you were trying to prove my new job was bad, and you asked me to count up all the hundred dollar bills I had earned. When I responded, I said there was ONE $100 bill, and a handful of $50s. Just because I tallied up $50s in the progress made to date does NOT mean I equate them with $100s. I certainly never said I did. You dreamed that up.

Seriously--you literally wrote that because I considered DP laws progress, I must have been calling them equal and therefore I'm guilty of inconsistency. That was your logic. Nice.

"Nope, a quick State count--simple math, proves that such arguments for gay marriage have simply NOT proven themselves effective in the real world."

Yeah. Simple math is best for people who can't comprehend a more than simple view of the world. Stick with it. The rest of us are aware that major social change can't be expected overnight.

"All you have done is essenetially re-play the game that was lost last week--while failing to come up with new plays for the NEXT game."

That's right. 1 state with marriage, several with DP and CU, and major SCOTUS rulings. Those are clear failures. We'd better change our plan. To what? CXT has no idea.

To sum up: you have no better arguments for gay marriage. You have no ideas you can reference. You have no answer to simple questions. And you would imagine yourself in a position to judge a national civil rights movement on this basis. Wow.

Here's the thing: YOU support same sex marriage. YOU think the arguments for it are stupid. YOU can come up with no others. Therefore:

--you're just arguing to argue and the ideas are fine
--you believe an argument that you think is stupid.
--you have a better argument, but you're just holding it in reserve.
--you don't even know what you're thinking.

Which is it? I think it's probably #1. Afterall, there are only so many possible reasons to support it--fairness, precedent (gay rights, changing marriage traditions), lack of a reason to deny it, separation of church and state, promoting parenting by LGBs. I've raised all of these. I doubt your secret reason exists--martians, perhaps?

I think you've just contorted every reasonable thing I've said into nonsense (in your eyes only) and gotten upset with it. For an example, see above.

So, are you going to repeat yourself, or can you:

--answer a question
--propose a better argument
--reference anything?

[cxt]

IJ

So much for just letting this go.
I guess that is ANOTHER direct statement that you didn't really mean huh?

But that is exactly the point IJ---you spend a great deal of time trying to establish "seperate but equal" as BAD---UNLESS you can use the practice to artifically inflate the numbers of how many States allow gay marriage.
Then your "OK" enough with the practice to INCLUDE it as the "equal" of full fleged "gay marriage."

Again, you say one thing when its suits you---quite something else when it does not.
Playing it fast and loose with the facts of the discussion is one of reasons there is serious PR problem here----when one of the main propontents of a idea appears shifty--then the IDEA suffers.

Insult and invictive does not change the facts---and the facts are that gay marriage has remarkably little traction in terms of the arguments you have posted so far--or for that matter with professionals that have extended the same arguments in real courts.
Refusal to face reality about that---while at the same time falling back upon infantile jabs is useless.

Insulting me might help reduce your stress---does exactly NOTHING about changing the numbers.

AGAIN with the SCOTUS stuff--good thing your NOT trying to force social change thu the courts.........oh, wait.

I didn't say "stupid" I said "less than effective" or "in-effective."
And they DEMONSTRATABLY ARE "less effecitve" and "in-effective"---again a simply check of the numbers over decades proves that.

Again, IJ, simple rules of procedure here---"I" don't have to present anything--my function here is the same as a negative role in a debate--my fucntion is to attack the case--ie what YOU have said--show its flaws, not establish an Affirmative case myself.
You can either keep getting all weepy and whiny about it or you can google the term "debate"--up to you.

In closeing--for now.

If the ideas "are fine" then please present YOUR theory for why they HAVE NOT and DON'T work.
If its as simple as you claim then I guess all the people that have been working on this issue for decades are simply to "stupid"--to use your term---to explain them correctly.
If they had just thought to tell people that the laws requires gay marriage.........wait a minute----they did--and we still don't have it.

Go figure.

(actually your theory is essentially irrelevent---I'm sure that its quite entertaining-- replete with cabals of religious fanatics---albino monks no doubt.
But the "why" is of less importance than dealing with fact that its IS.
When one finds a rattelsnake in ones bed--its not the best time to sit around and speculate as to how exactly it got there--the "best" thing to do is deal with the snake.)

Look IJ you want to spin tall tales--go find some little kid to read bedtime stories to---they don't ask to many hard questions about why the giant is so mean.

You want to join me in dealing with the reality of the situation----well you'll find its a lot harder than being snide and petulent--despite your repeatedly demonstrated talent for both

[IJ]

CXT:

Because you really aren't getting it:

Equality is best.
Near equality is second best.
I tallied marriages, CUs, and DPs, but didn't say I considered them equal, just that they all represent progress.

What exactly is confusing you about that?

"Again, IJ, simple rules of procedure here---"I" don't have to present anything--my function here is the same as a negative role in a debate--my fucntion is to attack the case--ie what YOU have said--show its flaws, not establish an Affirmative case myself."

First, in a debate, if you want to stick to classic rules, you answer questions. Second, I certainly didn't invoke classic rules. I just said that you were repeating yourself and offering no meaningful alternatives or valuable or referenced insights whatsoever and that you might want to start.

"If the ideas "are fine" then please present YOUR theory for why they HAVE NOT and DON'T work."

You missed the explanation? Five times? Here we go again:

1) Social change occurs slowly, even when based on fact, as in science; reference: Kuhn, and the history of any civil rights movement, for example, of african americans.

2) The arguments are working. There's marriage in one state, DPs and CU's in others, where before there was nothing, and only 30 years ago there was widespread and near complete legal and social disapproval of same sexers.

That's darned good progress considering how bad the general perception of same sex relationships was just a little while ago. Are you going to tell me most metastatic cancer or HIV medicines "aren't working" because no one's been cured? These are difficult problems. So where did we lose you?

Anyway, we're back (again) to two key observations:

First, you agree with gay marriage and disagree with all the common rationales. You're either just being argumentative, believe something based on a rationale you dislike (ie, are inconsistent, oh no!), or you have a magic better reason to support same sex marriage which you're concealing for secret reasons.

Second, you can't answer any simple questions, reference any of your points, or propose anything better, in all likelihood because you can't. Your argument is that you don't "have to", and you're right. You are making ample use of your right not to make sense, as well.

So, going to repeat yourself, or write something of substance?

[cxt]

IJ

Mainly because I don't belive that is why you tallied them---you did it to inflate the "head count" to spin my direct question.

In any case, since you already established that they DON'T COUNT--its disingenious for you to turn around and count them now---which is shifty and intellectually dishonest BTW.
I suppose you could go back and NOW admit that I was right all along in terms of DP/CU ARE equal to actual marriage---after all now YOUR NOW COUNTING them as being so---so I must be able too.

Way to go IJ--now we have a gay dude that is in favor of gay marrige publically admitting that DP/CU are the effective equal of actual marriage------in effect you have established that there is no real need to do more.

PLEASE, stop trying to help.

Ok, so I am "invoking classic rules" deal with it.

And I am "answering questions" you simply don't like the answers.

Nope, AGAIN, your danceing around the issue---and on that note should require a dance partner I certainly know where to look

You see my DIRECT QUESTION was why were not your arguments working?

Thus your answer of "social change takes time" is utterly beside the point---for 2 reasons.

1-If your now saying that "social change takes time" then its renders your SCOTUS stuff moot---essentially because your NOW claiming that no matter what legal stuff you try---its just going to take time.
Ergo, I was right all along and the arguements your using simply don't work---and NOW according to you--the only thing that will is TIME.
Way to go IJ, shot yourself in the foot again.

2-The arguments ARE NOT working, at best you have marriage in 1 State--not Fed recognized BTW, and DP/CU in a coupe of others.
According to your OWN post 1 State in a MINIMUM of 30 years---and you think that is working????

Really??

Hope I'm never a client of yours IJ----"IJ how much progress are we makeing on the project?

IJ--"Great progress boss----in the last 30 years, we have managed to get maybe 1 of the 50 + clients on board.

Boss "1--in 30 years you have 1 client on board?"

IJ-"Yeah, great progress boss!!!

Boss "IJ your fired"

See that is pretty much how that would work pretty much anyplace else.

2A-Since you already established that such "seperate but equal status is unaccpetable to you--they don't "count"---except of course when your trying to win an argument
Not sure that you can use them here.

Like I said, your missing the point--willfully or not.

Point is that is the current arguments are poorly performing, thus new arguments need to be tried.
But since your so OCD focused on the old ones--the ones that by your own admission have made almost no progress in 30 years you end up with essentially ardueing that "should too work!!!!!!!!!" instead of rationally looking at the performance and concluding that BETTER performing arguments need to be developed.

Kinda like the French prior to WW2--absoulutly convienced their chain of forts and tunnels would protect them from German Invasion.
Just like them, your trying to fight the LAST war, rather than deal with the CURRENT sitaution.

Oh, and of course I have "refrences" etc IJ, I just don't need to present them at this time---don't need them to point out the flaws in your arguments.

All I have to do is call my friends and ask if they can get legally married in the State in which they live.
Since the answer is "no" and has been for longer than they have been alive---the flaws are self-evident.

All I have to do is look at how many States allow it and how many don't.

Its a simple and ugly as that.

[IJ]

"In any case, since you already established that they DON'T COUNT--its disingenious for you to turn around and count them now---which is shifty and intellectually dishonest BTW."

Actually, I just interpreted the count in context. I know that a little progress means a lot after a little bit of time. You don't grasp that things take time. That is the only difference in interpretation. Once again, this is your missing a finer point rather than a distortion from my end.

"Way to go IJ--now we have a gay dude that is in favor of gay marrige publically admitting that DP/CU are the effective equal of actual marriage------in effect you have established that there is no real need to do more."

Is there some sort of word scrambler on your computer? For the tenth time, and I quote:

"Because you really aren't getting it:
Equality is best.
Near equality is second best.
I tallied marriages, CUs, and DPs, but didn't say I considered them equal, just that they all represent progress."

Is it sinking in?

"If your now saying that "social change takes time" then its renders your SCOTUS stuff moot---essentially because your NOW claiming that no matter what legal stuff you try."

Oye. Out in the real world, 1) things take time 2) SCOTUS precedent matters. You can bury your head in the sand, but these really aren't up for debate.

"The arguments ARE NOT working, at best you have marriage in 1 State--not Fed recognized BTW, and DP/CU in a coupe of others.
According to your OWN post 1 State in a MINIMUM of 30 years---and you think that is working????"

Oye. Oye. I love how you post that it's MY response that indicates it's only one state; it kind of indicates that you think these posts can just be made up that you cite my own to "get me." Actually, the 30 year tally represents a long crawl up from (as I said before) widespread social intolerance and zero legal protection. Marriage is perhaps one of the ultimate steps (along with national equal rights/protection from discrimination), and it's like the tip of the iceberg. Sooooo many other improvements have come along there isn't space to recount them. Perhaps it was because you don't read on the subjects you debate that you missed all of this other progress?

"All I have to do is call my friends and ask if they can get legally married in the State in which they live."

And what, pray tell, would that prove? If they're straight they can, if they're not they probably can't--we know this. By reference, I don't mean a friend who can comment on your ability to houseclean. I actually meant a link to something substantive on the movement. To everyone besides you, this means a lot more than a list of current laws.

"Point is that is the current arguments are poorly performing, thus new arguments need to be tried."

Ah, this is the crux of your nonpoints and your nonargument. The mysterious "new" justification. You know, the one you stamped "top secret" that would provide equal marriage all over the country in just a few years (which is how social change occurs in your head). You know, we've been talking about your superduper new argument for what a dozen posts now? And you can't produce one. You don't have a better one. You haven't done the reading, which is why you can cite nothing. There isn't a simple persuasive argument that just happened to escape me (largely because these aren't my babies, they're the collective work of hundreds of activists and lawyers and legislators and other advocates work over years). Of course, you're smarter than all of them (but you won't prove it, wink wink).

What's your next feat? To walk into a fusion or cancer research lab and mock the decades of research they've done on the process? Are you going to wander over to Iraq and tell them their plan is stupid because it hasn't worked immediately? Would you mind stopping by Congress to mock them for not getting our trade and budget deficits under control? I'm sure all of the people working these problems would find it especially helpful if you mocked their ideas while providing no useful concepts of your own. Yeah, that would be great.

Won't answer any direct questions. Won't provide any suggestions (but claims he has them). Won't provide any references to justify his points (but he has a ton of them, just won't share them). AND won't have spellchecked his post, understood the history of the subject, or even bothered to read a debate opponents posts or references (eg, when you got Romer backwards).

Perhaps that's the kind of expertise my boss ought to hire after letting me go, eh?

[cxt]

IJ

Of course I grasp it.

On Monday, "seperate but equal" is a CRIME--equal to keeping black students out of white schools--a horrible thing.
On Tues HOWEVER--when it artifically inflates the "head count" in an argument your having THEN of course its good enough to count.

I'm sure that you have some convoluted rationalization for flopping your points about like a fish on hook---but its not conviencing.

Nope, see part of the problem here is what your saying might make sense--its just not how the who's at home read it--or how those opposed your goals treat it.
What they hear and gets spun is a "gay guy that agree/establishes that DP/CU are the equal of marriage"--so in effect there is NO reason at all to go any further--problem solved-case closed--and we don't have feel bad about it since the gay guy agrees.

This is just like the whole establishing "marriage" as rock soild GENDER issue.
What you "mean" to say and what is actually "heard " VERY different thing---if you can't even get your own arguments stright--then please stop helping.

AGAIN, for the 1000th time--I neither deny nor argue that there has not been progress.
Unforutnatly THIS DISCUSSION IS ON GAY MARRIAGE--NOT "PROGRESS" AS A WHOLE.
Sorry for "yelling"--its just you don't seem to paying any attention to the topic under discussion--in context.

Well I think it "proves" that my gay friends can't get married in the State in which they live---nor in the vast pre-ponderence of all the OTHER States in the Union.

I'm not "mocking" anything--other than the OCD focus on poorly performing arguements.

Since you brought you "fusion and cancer labs" riddle me this "jenius" you think these folks have been re-running the SAME failed experiement for 30 YEARS???
Or do you think that sat down, looked at the data and tweeked the experiments a bit--tried some new approachs--tried some new methods???
Scientific progress is made thu experimentaion and objective analysis of the emperical data.
Improvements are not made by doing real world testing--then tossing out the results because they disagree with your pre-determined outcomes.
Ignoreing the data in favor of pre-concieved notions of how things "should" work is exactly why we still have yahoos running around trying to sell "free energy" machines and phony cancer meds.

And in context with this discusion---poorly performing arguments.

And again, insulting me does not improve the quality of those arguements.
It merely show just what a serious PR problem there is with this issue.
Running around insulting the folks that actually want there to be gay marriage---well that kinda wacked.
But it does show you why after 30 years its still not in place.

I wouldn't want you talking ANYONE on my behalf--you can't keep a civil tounge in your head, your demonstrably shifty, disingenious and intellectually dishonest.
And you serioulsy can't figure out why people are unwilling to side with you and your viewpoints???

Really????

[IJ]

Listing progress (DP, CU, and marriage) and being perfectly clear about what name was given isn't dishonest. Facts aren't dishonest. They're just facts. And I never said they were equal, just that they mattered.

"What they hear and gets spun is a "gay guy that agree/establishes that DP/CU are the equal of marriage"..."

This is a key statement. Arguing with you is like arguing religion, since you don't write from facts, but from ideas that you really value. But this is a testable hypothesis! OTHER PEOPLE would consider me to have equated DP, CU, and marriage. So, here's your challenge:

1) find one other mammal who's read my posts and thinks I equated them.
2) show that this misperception matters (it doesnt matter if one person misread my posts--besides you--because there are 260 million americans).

You probably will never get past one, but let me know if you do.

"Unforutnatly THIS DISCUSSION IS ON GAY MARRIAGE--NOT "PROGRESS" AS A WHOLE."

Oh, really, you set all the terms of the discussion now... you refuse to answer questions, reference any of your arguments, or post any better ideas of your own, instead merely offering unsupported attacks on ideas of others, and NOW, you've decided I can't discuss any other form of progress?

Who put you in charge??

Listen, when you discuss an issue, you understand that progress matters even if not complete. That's how rational people discuss issues. Eg:

1) When we talk Iraq, we're allowed to point out their elections as progress, even though the number of self governing self sufficient countries is zero.

2) When we talk about metastatic lung cancer, we're allowed to point out all the treatments that prolong and enhance life, even if no one was cured.

3) When we talk about deficits, we're allowed to point out reductions as improvements, even if there is still a deficit.

I could go on and on with just about every issue known to mankind... this nonsense by which you declare (in post #120 or so!) anything less than marriage to be irrelevant is just that--nonsense. If YOU were critiquing your posts, you might point out here that you've been arguing about DP and CU's for days and then declare them a nonissue, which would be inconsistent, intellectually dishonest, and like a fish flopping on a hook.

"Well I think it "proves" that my gay friends can't get married in the State in which they live---nor in the vast pre-ponderence of all the OTHER States in the Union."

Errr... no one needs that proof, because *I* went to the trouble of listing all the states with partner laws. Your nameless gay friends are not exactly a reference as the term is usually intended (ie, during a debate).

"Since you brought you "fusion and cancer labs" riddle me this "jenius" you think these folks have been re-running the SAME failed experiement for 30 YEARS???"

First, thanks for spelling "genius" with a j. Second, you don't know how to apply analogies. The situation is analogous--not identical. Third, if, by reapplying the same experiment over 30 years, they had radically altered fusion or cancer the way gay rights and public acceptance have been radically altered, then YES THEY WOULD. In particular, cancer trials actually are run according to an established protocol that best ensures a medically useful result (benefits and harms, costs measured) in the most efficient way, and they generally involve similar drugs--all cytotoxic poisons. (reference: James, Intermountain Healthcare Advanced Training Program in Quality Improvement).

"I wouldn't want you talking ANYONE on my behalf--you can't keep a civil tounge in your head, your demonstrably shifty, disingenious and intellectually dishonest."

I bet you don't even know why this is funny!

"And you serioulsy can't figure out why people are unwilling to side with you and your viewpoints??? Really????"

Reminders: 1) they are. you're the only person writing in about this and YOU agree with my equal marriage plan. Others have voiced support. 2) the success or failure of a national movement has NOTHING to do with my posts--you seem to be laboring under the impression that what I say affects the opinion of the SCOTUS, Congress, or state governments! More evidence of your confusion. We may be the last two people reading this thread, actually.

Now, with your diversions once again addressed, here's the problem, as I wrote before:

"You know, we've been talking about your superduper new argument for what a dozen posts now? And you can't produce one. You don't have a better one. You haven't done the reading, which is why you can cite nothing. There isn't a simple persuasive argument that just happened to escape me (largely because these aren't my babies, they're the collective work of hundreds of activists and lawyers and legislators and other advocates work over years). Of course, you're smarter than all of them (but you won't prove it, wink wink)."

You know what would REALLY prove that the LGB movement is using the wrong arguments? That is what you're trying to prove, yes? IF YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS CONVINCINGLY, CITED A REFERENCE, AND ABOVE ALL, SUGGESTED ONE TINY LITTLE ARGUMENT THAT WOULD WORK BETTER THAN APPEALING TO EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, & LEGAL PRECEDENT.

I'm.... still.... waiting....

[cxt]

IJ

But that is NOT how you cast it all--you only did that when you NEEDED to do so.
The whole "seperate but equal" argument was with nary a peep about it being "almost as good" or "good progress."
In fact you lectured me--at length about the "extra effort" all the legal means such as CU/DP took.

No I don't write from YOUR version as being the "facts."

Don't want to belive me about your stuff being used against the cause you hold dear?
Fine by me--but tell me do you wear a seat belt???
Do you do so because you think your going to be in an accident or do you wear one because of the remote possibity that you MIGHT be in one and MIGHT need it???
Arguments have a scary way of coming back to life when one least expects it.
Why take the chance?

No, we are having a clear discussion on gay marriage--not any other aspects of gay rights---were not talking about gay adoption or gay houseing etc--strides have been in all sorts of areas--I neither argued nor questiuoned that.

I simply question your Polly-Anna, everything is rainbows, butterflys and sunshine view of the state of gay marriage in the USA.

And since you lectured me about--and even used verbagae suggesting CU/DP were CRIMES--I think its disingenious and intellectually dishonest to NOW re-cast them "marks of progress" when your losing as e-arguement.
If your willing to be that shifty when there is nothing at stake-----what would you do in other circumstances.

So your quibbling with my choice of the term "pre-ponderence"----Ok , then by YOUR numbers how many States allow gay marriage and how many allow the previously reviled DP/CU?
Only ONE State allows actual gay marriage--and that one has some Fed problems with it.
So you got 1 out of how many??
And you don't see that as a "preponderence"???--Really??

Heck at THAT RATE--one State every 30 years---in 2030 there will be 2 States that sanction gay marriage---yahoo!!!
In a 165 years there will be 5 MORE---woo-ha!

Sheesh IJ.

And of those trials---any of them run for 30 solid years without the reseacher tweeking the experiment???
Or did at some point in that timeframe, did they say--"hey, this really isn't working that well--maybe we should try something a bit different??"

Thats is really all I'm saying here--instead of slavish devotion--maybe try another approach.

Come on IJ, I know you and reality have only a passing relationship---but sheesh.

The "jenius" spelling error was on purpose BTW

AGAIN, didn't say "wrong" I said "poorly performing" , "less effective" etc arguements and the "proof" you ask for is simple and self evident.

In 30 years of using them---only ONE State allows gay marriage---if you seriously don't see that as poorly performing--if you really think that such lackluster achivement means that other, better arguements don't need to even be TRIED or worked on.......well then all I can express is my deep sadness at your lack of imagination and your tolerence of the status quo.

Forceing social change thu the courts/leagl gamesmanship is a serious problem--as are activist judges.

Like I keep saying IJ--in the "lab" such appeals work just fine---real world trials however have resulted in poor performence.

Sadly.

[IJ]

"The whole "seperate but equal" argument was with nary a peep about it being "almost as good" or "good progress." In fact you lectured me--at length about the "extra effort" all the legal means such as CU/DP took."

This is an interesting statement because it is correct! You just let out some important details. Yes, I emphasized that they were not substitutes because at the time, you were claiming, quite incorrectly, that they were. This does not mean that they're not progress. Hey, understand this, don't, I don't care.

"No, we are having a clear discussion on gay marriage--not any other aspects of gay rights---were not talking about gay adoption or gay houseing etc"

If you can't recognize the relevance I doubt I could bring you up to speed, so let's agree to disagree.

"Heck at THAT RATE--one State every 30 years..."

Can you say, double wow? This is a really good example of your not getting it. People didn't work on gay marriage for 30 years and get one state. They worked on ALL gay issues, starting with the right to exist outside of jail without enduring threats and overt hate, and after making tons of progress, it became possible to address gay marriage. I don't know when the first meaningful case for gay marriage was lodged, but it sure as heck wasn't 30 years ago. We got 1 state for marriage and several for DP/CU (and the issue into every home in America) over a shorter period of time. NB: You made this mistake because you were so quick to dismiss all other progress as irrelevant.

"And of those trials---any of them run for 30 solid years without the reseacher tweeking the experiment???"

Where on earth did you get the idea that the case for marriage equality has been the same for 30 years? Heck, I'll bet you, maybe $5 that Lawrence and Romer weren't cited before they were decided

"The "jenius" spelling error was on purpose BTW"

Hard to know the intent of an author who makes a dozen errors a post, but ok.

"Like I keep saying IJ--in the "lab" such appeals work just fine---real world trials however have resulted in poor performence."

Let's rephrase things. Maybe that will help.

You would agree, that if I made awesome arguments in favor of quantum mechanics in 1200 AD, I would not be believed, right? Minds were not ready. No matter how good the case. The same would be true for interracial marriage between a prominent politician and a former slave in 1800 Georgia. And you would agree that no matter what argument an activist used in Tehran for gay marriage, they'd be at a greater risk of imprisonment, torture, and execution than of success, right? That country is run by religious fundamentalists who won't be persuaded to support same sexers unless God himself appears and mandates it. This is the point of Kuhn's famous (to some) text--that change takes time no matter what argument is made. This is a fact. You can dispute it only to the extent that you can dispute the idea that earth orbits the sun.

Ok, so it's pretty clear that the quality of your argument doesn't guarantee results (if you disagree, please please please have a reason, maybe a reference??).

Now, your case is that gay marriage isn't moving fast enough, so the arguments ******, and we obviously have to change them. That's your case. And all you've got to back this up is a tally of states that allow marriage.

Here's the thing.

You HAVE NOT shown that there is a better argument. (I would submit that you can't, because you're not smarter or more capable than a few hundred legally savvy activists with political experience).

You HAVE NOT shown that gay marriage COULD have moved faster. Not even that a similar issue has swept America any faster. The former is probably impossible, the latter--well, I can't think of something as culturally ingrained as male-female only marriage being overturned nationally within a few years, but maybe you'd like to share?).

Until you do either one of those things, you have not shown that we are not using the best available arguments.

You are merely stating that they haven't changed the law any faster than they have, which is another way of saying that you're merely noting the obvious: the LGB movement has changed marriage laws at exactly the rate it changed them.

Why does this matter? Well, IF you don't show that there is a better argument out there and that marriage law could have changed faster, you haven't shown that marriage law would have changed faster if we used a better argument. It remains quite probable that something close to the best argument was and is used, because it represents the collective work of many knowledgable people, rather than, say, the relatively unlearned and unreferenced musings of a forum debater.

Your whole conclusion is rather dumb. Don't take this personally, try to think this through: you have not shown that there's a better argument, and you probably can't. Your admonition to simply change arguments because legal progress has taken years, therefore, would probably just shift us to a less effective argument and make things worse. See? Think it through. If you answer but one question on this whole thread, make it this one: how do you know that switching to another argument wouldn't make things worse/slower??

Here's an analogy. This might help.

I say that we've gotten a spacecraft 1/50th of the way to mars. You say the mere tally shows dismal change and proves we need a better method (this is really the level you've gotten the debate to, sadly). You claim debaters privilege and refuse to answer any questions about spacetravel, refuse to suggest a better method, and accuse me of slavish, OCD devotion to one method, and insist, until I change, it's going to take forever. So what am I to do with that nonsense? Get out of the spaceship and slap on rollerblades?

Brilliant.

[cxt]

IJ

Look YOUR the guy with the problem with DP/CU--unless of course you wanting to use them to score points in a e-debate.

AGAIN, IJ, I don't know what discussion your having with whom--But "I'm" talking about gay marriage--and analogs there of.
You want to push, pull and drag everything but the bathroom sink into the discussion to try and salvage your stance---its a ploy and weak one that.

Judgeing by your shifty, disingenious, duplicitious behavior IJ--I simply don't trust you to pay the $5 if you lost.

Example---check the dates on the whole "seperate but equal" LEGAL arguments you envoked back when you were argueing that DP/CU were simply not good enough.

Besides--AGAIN, you bring up LEGAL cases--AGAIN, yeah--your NOT trying to force social change thu the courts --whats next IJ--you have a bridge to sell.

Judeging by your ahm....."arguments" so far I don't belive that you can make an "awesome" argument about much of anything----certainly not up to competion quality anyhow.

Lets try it this way IJ--this a martial arts site.

Say I vist your dojo which you bill as teaching an effective fighting/competion art.

IJ--"My school has 1000's of students all over the country, over the last 30 years we have competed 100's maybe 1000's of full contact matchs."

Me--"Cool--how many matchs at the State level have you won in 30 years?"

IJ--"Well--we won one--and there are some questions about it--the national organization does not recognize it--but we won one."

Me--"You have one match in 30 years with 1000's of students all over the country and you have won ONE State level match???"

IJ--"Well on paper our system is the best dude--can't you read here in our news-letter, that I write, our system is the best?"

Me-" Yeah, I see that........but still 30 years---how many National level meets have you won?

IJ--"Well--none--but hey, were getting MUCH better---we have actually managed to TIE in a couple of fights recently--we don't get our butts kicked nearly as bad as we used to."

Me-"So you have won NO National level meets and only ONE State level meet--a win that is questionable at the State level--and a handful of Ties.
Have you at least CONSIDERED makeing some changes in how you train--maybe at least explore other possibities, other methods??"

IJ-"Why? I already told you that we have the best system possible"
What are you some "unbeliver" that dares question the awesome power of our system?"

Me--"Whoa, I'm just asking if maybe, just maybe of you have gone 30 years with only 1 debatable win and a couple of Ties--if at least SOME degree of self-examination might be warrented."

IJ-"Of course not--like I keep telling--my school is the best!!"

Me- "Ok....Fine--see ya"

We can keep doing this until they lock the thread IJ.

Me, I'm just getting bored with trying to get your JV performence up to the Varsity standard--I've long since despaired with even the hope your going to be a "starter."

ANOTHER reason why gay marriage isn't more widespread.
You, being one its most vocal proponesnt has proven to be shifty, disingenious, duplictious, and willing to argue against HIS OWN points--when and where it suits you to try and win a e-debate of all things.

A serious issue in the hands of a non-serious person, whom is treating it in non-serious fashion.

Its no wonder things are not further along--sadly.

[IJ]

I think we're making progress, because instead of responding to my post, you repeat personal attacks and your old arguments.

Listen, if I invented a new martial art and went from zero recognition, or outright hatred and illegality, to widespread acceptance, with a first place in one state and second place in 8 or so others, with recognition by the supreme martial arts court that we were a legitimate organization that shouldn't be picked on and had a right to practice, then WOW, I'd throw a party.

Did the Okinawans get the Japanese to let them own weapons and practice karate openly in that timeframe? Were they losers because they didn't? Of course not--but things have gone better for us.

To recap:
You haven't listed a better argument.
You haven't shown we're not using the best argument.
You haven't shown the movement could have possibly done any better.
You haven't shown ANY similar movement has EVER done better.
You can't cite a single source and won't answer a single simple question.

Because you AREN'T a better civil rights strategist than the hundreds or thousands of local, state, and federal activists who have made amazing strides for LGB in this country in the last 30 years.

Is that any surprise? You can stop being a contrary naysayer and join in the celebration of victories achieved and struggles ongoing. Or you can keep arguing that some argument you can't name is better (to what end???). One thing you CAN'T do is prove your supposed point.

[cxt]

IJ

Sorry old bean.

I don't know what conversartion your having with whom---but I've been talking about gay mariage and its analogs---pretty much period.

Your the guy that wants to argue that "seperate but equal" is a pretty much a CRIME on one day then argue it as PROGRESS the next---when you need to pad your count.

Again, all I'm doing here is pointing out the multiple flaws in your arguements---not actually presenting an affermitive case of my own.
If your having this much trouble following simple debate concepts then please use the "google" function.
The negative is not required to show "better" just that the affirmative case--in this case yours--is flawed.

(the negative can certainly present a case--sometimes it really helps--but in this case, on this issue its not really needed as the current status quo is painfully self evident)

The fact your having trouble with simple debate concepts is ANOTHER reason why there has been so little progress with gay marriage in 30 YEARS.
Some of its most vocal proponents---such as yourself, don't really understand proper proceedures.

A secondary effect is that not having a good grasp of such things that make arguments that they really don't fully understand---Oh, you parrot OTHER peoples arguments quite well--but since you don't really know what your doing you make critical errors--self negate your arguements--contridict yourself--make arguments that don't really say what you think they do--that kind of thing.

Have they made "amazing strides??" I think they HAVE--and more power to them---but AGAIN, I'm not talking about the entire spectrum of gay rights, AGAIN, I'm talking about gay marrige.

And AGAIN, my "proof" is that in 30 years, only 1 State has allowed it--and there are serious issues with that single achivment.
That is all the proof that is required--you don't have to like it--pretty pissed about it myself--but that is current reality.

And AGAIN, all I'm asking here is that given the snails pace of progress on the issue of gay marriage--why not at least CONSIDER other options and approachs???
What in gods name (small "g" ) is so OCD about a series of arguments that really does not seem to working all that well that prevents you from even CONSIDERING other options?

That is just nuts.

Here is a "freebie" for you IJ--your now making MY arguement--you say:

"The 100's or 1000' of local, state, federal activiest."

See what your doing is 3 things:

1-Introducing numbers as a measure of success/validity---therefore if MORE people oppose such activism then they MUST be "better" in effect.

I'm sure that is not what you were trying to do--but that is how such stuff gets spun.

2-Again, that so many people have worked so long on the issue of gay marriage and accomplished so little, over so much time----well lets just say that little example does not really say what you think it does either.

3-AGAIN, your rather pointedly linking the issue to legal machinations---ie trying to force social change thu the courts.
Like I keep telling you--one of your biggest hurdles is all the people that actually support the idea of gay marriage but are bitterly opposed to judical activism and legislature from the bench.
Which BTW is viewed as a much more serious problem/issue than not having gay marriage.

Its clear that your not listening and its clear that your not wanting to face reailty---I hope that people working so hard to make gay marriage a reality have a better imagination and are more willing to learn from past mistakes, than you are IJ.

Otherwise its going to be loooooonnnnnnggggg wait--mores the pity.

You know was going to keep this going until they locked the thread--since you can't beat my arguments I was not going to just let you outlast me.
But this is just getting boring for me IJ.

You have already done, shfity, disingenious and duplicitious.

You have already provided mutiple examples for my debate students on what NOT to do.
Debate is a "real time" activity that does NOT allow you to endlessly parse and re-work your mistakes--there are no "do overs" for jamming your foot in your mouth.
You have to understand what your saying-what it means and how its going to be attacked---if you don't know where the weak points in your case are--I guarentee that your opponents WILL.

There is a real lesson here with this issue and how your approching it---if your willing to listen.

And a couple of my gay friends have pointed out that in my zeal to upgrade the standard for the arguements by putting them to a tough questioning, I might have given the opposition more help than intended.
Personally I think if an argument can't take the gaff then its of little real use anyway----but unlike yourself I'm willing to consider that I can make mistakes.

In any case, I'm going to allow you to have the last word here IJ--no need to thank me.

Happy to contuine the discussion---just done with THIS part of it.

Enjoy being able to build whatever sandcastle you wish without the fear of it being swept away by the powerful waves of the incoming tide IJ.

[IJ]

You're rehashing your old mistakes about social change and the inability to recognize that progress is not the same as equality, and tossing out insults. Why don't you ask these "debate students" or gay friends to write in support of any of these arguments of yours. Maybe they would make more sense.

Or, perhaps you could stop dancing around this simple point:

Your supposed point is that the many far more learned people who've worked on this issue are using the wrong argument.

BUT, as I said before:

"You haven't listed a better argument.
You haven't shown we're not using the best argument.
You haven't shown the movement could have possibly done any better.
You haven't shown ANY similar movement has EVER done better.
You can't cite a single source and won't answer a single simple question.

Because you AREN'T a better civil rights strategist than the hundreds or thousands of local, state, and federal activists who have made amazing strides for LGB in this country in the last 30 years."

You have not and cannot shown that the best argument is not being used. Period. Why don't you address that simple, obvious fact for once?