I'm giving my opinion fully. Where is yours? Nodda. You pick apart my post with little details and attack me on it instead of giving you full complete views. Trolling at its finest.

-S

That's kinda how it works SM.

1) If person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person B's argument with a counter argument.

2) If person B disagrees with person A's counter argument then person B may chose to
make a counter-counter argument.
Or person B might concede.

3) ad infinum

The way it does not work is thus:

1) Person A disagrees with something person B says, then person A tries to show the
weakness of person A's argument with a counter argument.

2) Person B calls person A a troll.


:shifty:

Wrong - try your constant attacks, this thread and others? And how about the baiting? That is all I ever get from you - ever! As you can tell, I've got a bit hostile too it lately. Maybe one day we can have a normal conversation.

-S

Lets just grab a couple and analyze your typical post in response to me in a thread:


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137643

How is that not trolling?


http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=137733

And this?


This is what I'm talking about. I didn't start it. There are hundreds like this at Subsim. And you wonder why i'm tired of putting up with it. :roll:

-S

Sorry, but the thought of 2 men touching each other just makes me want to pewk!:dead:

You think I am a 'sicko' because I support gay marriage???

ok.

I can live with that.

Subman & Letum - take it offline please....

We got much bigger issues in this world to think about than whether two consenting adults be it male or female, get married. For the record Gay Marriage is legal in Canada.

Fine by me, I may not agree with it as far as my own lifestyle, but I do respect it.


RDP

Talking about submarines and homosexuality....
The course of the Battle for the Atlantic may have been very, very different if it was
not for the efforts of a homosexual codebreaker, mathematician and natural
philosopher who cracked the naval enigma codes, provided the basis, in theory and
practical design, for all computers like the one I am useing to type this and later
committed suicide when faced with prison or hormone injections for his sexuality.

One of England's worst betrayals of a hero whom so many owe their lives to.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ial_Closer.jpg

I loved the "12 Reasons that Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society"

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
5. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
6. Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
10. Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

Nice, mookie :)

Love #8

I sure hope some of these comments posted on this thread don't offend the gay and lesbian members of this site.

Some of the comments seemed a bit harsh at times.

The "simple curiosity" line surprised me, it's in fact a pretty good summary of the labor of a historian as a "vehicle" of the evolution of collective mentality. Kudos for it.

I didn't say we can't learn from the past, not at all. I'm just trying to draw a line between "food for thought" and syllogism. The reason why I believe that all opinions are not only valid but even welcome is that it's up to the maturity of the reader, not the writer, to extract valid conclusions from it. I can't remember who said that "everyone can be useful, if only as a bad example". Same applies to analogies.

Examples from past societies are really useful in the sense that they are the only thing remotely similar to a laboratory experiment a historian can have. A biologist can come up with a theory and wonder how it will work experimentally. A historian has to think how it has worked. Alas, the conditions of the "experiment" are already determined and never ideal, so as useful as it might be it can never be held as a necessary relationship of cause and effect.

That known, it's all good to do it, specially in an informal level, because you never know what or who will give you the key to make a debate progress. It might be an erudite essay, it might be a new book or it might be an innocent and simplistic comment from a child that simply "makes you wonder".

Geez, I talk too much!

In short, the example is useful, illustrative and can bring something to the discussion, sorry if it seemed that I was trivializing it. It is not, however, final until a satisfactory chain of causal relations can be created between a bored and randy Greek hoplite and, just to use Letum's example, a person like Alan Turing who came from a completely different set of circumstances.

As for Turing's particular case, it's also very illustrative and I thank Letum for posting it. Even though I'm not really certain of the positive or negative consequences of gay marriage (I don't know enough gay couples and I don't understand modern society well enough to judge there yet, gut feelings aside), even if we were to accept (remember, just hypothetically, this is not a judgement) that gay rights could have a negative impact in family structure and education, ordeals like the one Turing had to endure really make you think how much damage a "good" decision can make. I know it's just one example of one person and we can't really know how many more like him there were, but it hardly seems worth it to torture a man so, no matter what we claim to be defending.

Gay or not, he was absolutely ace at what he did and it's pretty unfair that he should end up that way...

I could not agree more with you more. The late Dave Bunnell " leovampire ", creator of ROW ( Reflections on Water ) and other great mods for SH4 and a great friend of mine and others here ( he was, and still is held in the highest esteem here at SUBSIM ), was gay, I wonder what he would think of some of this discussion. As most folks know here, along with modding, Dave would help anybody that asked or needed it, anybody.


RDP

I have to say that another worry I have is "what comes next".

As a heterosexual, it is tempting for me, and many like me, to ignore the issue as it does not seem to affect me directly.

However, a legal action against it would, ultimately, be a legal action based on a relative moral system (if it wasn't relative, I suppose all cultures would either be pro or against) and that attempts to control a matter as private as sexual orientation.

Call me a paranoid, but that sets the ground for other laws that could affect me eventually.

Western governments lack power by design. This is, I think, a double-edged blade. It means they rarely if ever will have the power to enforce a "responsible" measure if it's unpopular. But it also means they rarely if ever will have the power to enforce an "arbitrary" measure if it's unpopular. They lack the backbone to do good AND bad.

The old debate between freedom and authority arises, but as of now I'd rather have a gay neighbor now than a government official watching me while I have sex ten years from now :lol: