Ken Starr and his homophobic agenda.

[Theben]

doesn't mean i think all gay people should be slaughtered...

Damnit I need more than 4 lines for sigs!! This is a travesty!!

EDIT: Stupid anti-cap filter

[MrFun]

I don't think that would help your cause.

Ya think?

I was just following the logic of others on here who seem to believe in "majority rule, no matter the costs."

[Solomwi]

I was trying to make the "MrFunniest" joke I could think of.

[Felch]

Push polling is when you ask a specific question in the hopes of getting the answer that you want. There are all kinds of games you can play. I've seen it enough to know how you do it.

I know what push polling is. I'm asking if you have examples? The question, "Do you support continuing the war in Iraq?" is hardly a manipulative one.

The other problem is your so-called 'random' sample. Again, polling 1000 people is not the same as the will of the people.

You're right, it's not the exact same. It is an economical approximation, however. Believe it or not, as long as the sample is random (and they go to great lengths to ensure that it is), you don't need that many people to get an accurate result.

As an aside, why did you put random in quotes? What are you trying to imply?

[Lorizael]

Edit, misread. I've called for a referendum on the issue for a long time now. Never have I said that the polls were sufficient to stand by themselves, merely that the fact that the polls are against gay marriage means that there needs to be a referendum to settle the issue rather then passing it by judicial fiat.

By what measure are polls useful, if there are push polls?

No, I don't. Please quote me where I have said that I supported going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan.

My apologies. I was under the impression that you did support the Iraq war. What is your stance on the war at present?

Unlike you I was consistant, I rejected both wars when the question was should we go or not.

Uh, I don't think you have any idea what my stance on the wars is. I very rarely voice my true opinions here. I'll say this, though: I'm pretty much always a pacifist and an isolationist, to the point that I might argue against United States involvement in World War II. So, do you think I supported the Afghan war but not the Iraq war?

You seem under the presumption that Iraq was the bad, bad, bad war, but Afghanistan was all good and holy. I think that's because you read the NYTimes and believe whatever they have to say. I don't understand the position whatsoever that one was good and the other was bad.

Er, I think you just made this up. Do you know who I am?

I said there are no issues that require referendums. I also said that having a referendum would be beneficial, regardless of the issue. What's so hard to understand about that?

If referendums are the ultimate arbiter of what is right in a democracy, but they are never necessary, how does one determine the proper course of action in a democracy?

And you call me a hypocrite?

Good day sir!

I believe gay marriage should be legal, but I have no stake in its legality in California.

[Q Classic]

Look, there's only one big guy in the sky that I have to answer to when I'm all done here, and it ain't QCubed.

That's if you believe in "one big guy in the sky". I, for one, do not. I answer to myself, and to the people around me.

I find that it's a far more effective method of ensuring that I follow decent moral codes and treat people with respect; your reliance on some figure which may or may not exist clearly allows you the liberty to be a disrespectful, heinous ******* to people for no reason at all.

You'll have to answer to him too. All I know is what he's said and he's very clear that marriage is explicitly for men and women only.

If you go by the Bible, which has also said quite a few other things rather explicitly that any right-thinking individual these days finds reprehensible.

[Q Classic]

...online. The internet brings out everyone's inner bully, you should know that. IRL, there are plenty of liberal Xians (aren't the Episcopalians still on the way to civil war over lesbian bishops or something?), but they tend to get drowned out by the loudmouth bigots in much the same way that, until Obama came along, the Democrats were continually outmaneuvered by the GOP.

See also Doc Strangelove, Slowwhand (not super-intellectual, but hardly a gay-basher or a moron), MrFun, I think Japher...note that all of these people tend to only bring up their faith when it's somehow germane to the discussion (dunno about them, but I just dislike wearing Jesus on my sleeve all the time, trying to push Him on people like an Amway rep). You naturally notice us less.

Which, naturally, is the point I was trying to make.

The sad thing is, you're like the moderate and liberal Muslims. Nobody hears/cares about you guys, so the reactionary, "conservative", hostile and anti-progress wings are the ones that garner all the attention for their outrageous comments and beliefs.

[Kuciwalker]

Ya think?

I was just following the logic of others on here who seem to believe in "majority rule, no matter the costs."

You seem to be completely incapable of understanding ANYONE'S argument.

[MrFun]

You seem to be completely incapable of understanding ANYONE'S argument.

Your argument is that there is legitimate merit in Starr's suit to forcibily dissolve the marriages of 18,000 gay and lesbian couples.

Unless I'm mistakened, you based this argument on the fact that California had changed its constitution to ban legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages. You're claiming that Starr's legitimacy comes from saying that because California has now made such marriages illegal, that this gives his case legitimacy. Your quote, "The suit is arguing that they do NOT have that right" seems to be based on California's referendum result on Prop. 8.

So if I'm understanding your argument then, I am taking your logic further to see to what end are we allowed to take away other people's rights then - such as if we would ever have a majority who would like to repeal the 14th Amendment in our U.S. Constitution through referendum.

So with my understanding of your argument, am I mistakened?

[Theben]

*mistaken

[Ben Kenobi]

That's if you believe in "one big guy in the sky". I, for one, do not. I answer to myself, and to the people around me.

So you don't believe in God at all?

I find that it's a far more effective method of ensuring that I follow decent moral codes and treat people with respect; your reliance on some figure which may or may not exist clearly allows you the liberty to be a disrespectful, heinous ******* to people for no reason at all.

Well here's the deal.

1. We get one kick at the can, one chance to get it right.
2. Everybody will be judged at judgement day.
3. Hell, really, really, really, really sucks.

If you sincerely love someone you will do what you can so that they will be saved at the end of the day. You have a fundamentally different view of the world from me. For you, you die, and that's it, so the only consequences of your life and your behaviour here are the earthly ones and the suffering that you go through in the meantime.

For me, that suffering and the life here is temporary, all of it will pass away. Heaven will not. Heaven is eternal life. Now if that's not your bag, fine, but there will be consequences, and they aren't very pleasant.

If you go by the Bible, which has also said quite a few other things rather explicitly that any right-thinking individual these days finds reprehensible.

What makes you think you've got the right path?

[Ben Kenobi]

My apologies. I was under the impression that you did support the Iraq war. What is your stance on the war at present?

And I owe you an apology as well. I was trying to figure out why you mentioned the one and not the other, which is why I made that observation.

Uh, I don't think you have any idea what my stance on the wars is. I very rarely voice my true opinions here. I'll say this, though: I'm pretty much always a pacifist and an isolationist, to the point that I might argue against United States involvement in World War II. So, do you think I supported the Afghan war but not the Iraq war?

Bringing up one and not the other made me think that way.

My stance at present is that if you are going to mess up a country you have to stay until the job is done. That goes for both Afghanistan and Iraq. If you are going to go to war, hit as hard as you can and as fast as you can. This way you spare as many casulties as possible, and the war will end more quickly.

I've not understood why pacifists would want Americans to be defeated. The harder it is for America, the more people will die.

[Ben Kenobi]

I know what push polling is. I'm asking if you have examples? The question, "Do you support continuing the war in Iraq?" is hardly a manipulative one.

Something like:

Do you believe that the George W. Bush war in Iraq has been a failure?

You're right, it's not the exact same. It is an economical approximation, however. Believe it or not, as long as the sample is random (and they go to great lengths to ensure that it is), you don't need that many people to get an accurate result.

As an aside, why did you put random in quotes? What are you trying to imply?

Systematic bias is really difficult to avoid in polling. It is hard to get a representative cross section of the population, especially when you get high refusal rates.

[Asher]

For me, that suffering and the life here is temporary, all of it will pass away. Heaven will not. Heaven is eternal life. Now if that's not your bag, fine, but there will be consequences, and they aren't very pleasant.

I always love the fire and brimstone Christians the best. The only reason they believe in God is because they've been scared by the threats of what will happen if they don't. It explains everything: your lack of integrity, your unwillingness to hear contrary opinions, and your tendency not to understand logic.

I've not understood why pacifists would want Americans to be defeated.

Another gem. If you're a pacifist, you want Americans to be defeated. In just one short sentence, you have offended the person you are talking to, demonstrated profound stupidity, and have shown how you constantly misrepresent the position of the people you are talking to. Class act, all around.

You are going to hell, and it will not be very pleasant.

[Ben Kenobi]

I always love the fire and brimstone Christians the best. The only reason they believe in God is because they've been scared by the threats of what will happen if they don't. It explains everything: your lack of integrity, your unwillingness to hear contrary opinions, and your tendency not to understand logic.

It couldn't be because I enjoy being a Christian?

Another gem. If you're a pacifist, you want Americans to be defeated. In just one short sentence, you have offended the person you are talking to, demonstrated profound stupidity, and have shown how you constantly misrepresent the position of the people you are talking to. Class act, all around.

Where did I say that was his position? I simply said I've never understood those who are pacifists who want america defeated. Lorizael being a pacifist himself I thought could shed more insight on the position.

I don't believe Lori wants America to be defeated. He asked me a very specific question on my beliefs, so I asked him one in turn.

You are going to hell, and it will not be very pleasant.

If so you have better perception then I do of my own fate.