Same Sex Marriage, Religion and Politics

I pm'd musikaman earlier attempting to take the heat out of the situation but I think this PM response to him should be viewed by the thread participants.

I think you are under an assumption that I'm listing my reasons because I wish to change a persons opinion about their stance.

It was never my intention. I listed my reasons why I have come to my stance for the express purpose to show there are more reasons than those stated in the original post.

For me to answer nit-picks about proof for my reasons is a waste of my time and frankly trying to "footnote" every news story, article I've read or discussion I've had with individuals over the last decade or so that leads me to my reasoning isn't worth it to me because you are not me and I expect you to make up your own mind from whatever experiences you have.

Empathy means trying to understand the others position and feelings something you apparently completely dismiss. *I had expressed in the PM that if he had any of the empathy towards me you desire me to have towards gays you would addressed me with more respect.*

You reject my concerns as unfounded but they are still mine as if I'm supposed to ignore them because I can't give you the bibliography of how I've come to this. I try to be a rational and reasonable person. I have resigned myself that despite my concerns laws will be made to forge ahead anyway. Maybe the secular definition of marriage should change but because the issue is not completely secular to me I will oppose it with my vote. I will not attempt to prevent those who wish to vote otherwise from being heard however.

I have made no mention of rejecting the "born that way" argument on grounds that predisposition is not justification for action. *Another hotly debated part of the issue I made no mention of it because I feel it doesn't add to the conversation either way I have written on it in the past and if a person fully understood my position on it they would understand that Im not telling them how or what to choose only that as a human being great power is unleashed when we live consciously. (I suggest people read Mans search for meaning by Victor Frankel*

I expressly said I didnt want to get into a debate over the issue. I was simply stating my concerns its up to evaluate them and determine if its worth your time trying to deal with them or not. For you I would think not.

I see my position as exactly the opposite from how you see it. I see you making an argument why something should be so. I present an objection and its your responsibility to overcome the objection in a rational manner or simply dismiss it as you have done. I'm not going to waste my time (any more than I have) trying to make my objection better in your eyes just so you can further dismiss it.

- I highly suggest this musical accompaniment while considering my reply. Thanks!

aammondd wrote:I think you are under an assumption that I'm listing my reasons because I wish to change a persons opinion about their stance.

Nope, not at all.

aammondd wrote:For me to answer nit-picks about proof for my reasons is a waste of my time and frankly trying to "footnote" every news story, article I've read or discussion I've had with individuals over the last decade or so that leads me to my reasoning isn't worth it to me because you are not me and I expect you to make up your own mind from whatever experiences you have.

Providing proof for assertions in an active debate is a waste of time. Check.

I suppose the difference here, Aammondd, is that while I certainly couldn't name each and every source that has led me to my conclusions, I could certainly provide some to back any assertions which I made. Especially if asked to do so.

aammondd wrote:Empathy means trying to understand the others position and feelings something you apparently completely dismiss. *I had expressed in the PM that if he had any of the empathy towards me you desire me to have towards gays you would addressed me with more respect.*

#1 Remove the word position from your definition. Feelings remains. Don't presume I have no clue how you feel, but feelings don't override reason. In a community such as this even more so than many. You know that.  

#2 I have zero respect for your asserted position or how you continuously choose to avoid responding in anything approaching an intelligent and reasonable manner. Less so when I know you're capable of doing so from past engagements. My respect for you, personally, is largely effected by your willingness to do so. Especially when I've made it clear that I'm going to respect you enough to not attack those of your arguments which are entirely faith based.

\"aammondd wrote:You reject my concerns as unfounded but they are still mine as if I'm supposed to ignore them because I can't give you the bibliography of how I've come to this.

Dude, please, we live in the golly darned internet age. Learn to Google.

aammondd wrote: I try to be a rational and reasonable person.

Please provide examples of where you've done so. Please show me where you've made assertions in a rational and reasonable manner. Thanks.

<INSERT SCREECHING BRAKE SOUND HERE!>

Do I have the readers attention? Good. Let's continue. I want you all to pay attention to this next part.

aammondd wrote:I will not attempt to prevent those who wish to vote otherwise from being heard however.

This is a backhanded assertion to something Aammondd stated earlier and once again in a PM to me. Something which he hasn't backed up with any proof, at all, when asked to do so each time now. Specifically from the PM he sent me and my reply:

aammondd wrote:There are many waiting to use the law as a tool to silence all opposition as hate speech. If you cannot see this pattern in the past and not expect it in the future then you are blind.

Musikaman wrote:What I want, Mr. Almond, is details. You're asserting that changes will be used to silence opposition. Given the first amendment, it seems highly unlikely that such an event would occur. I mean, have you not seen the villainous slander of the WBC be protected time and time again? Regardless, examples, facts, are king here. Show me where it's happened before and why you think it will happen again. You are continuously avoiding providing facts over speculation and aforementioned fear mongering.

If you're speaking, at all, to the taxation issue, you're misinformed and already over-privileged in that area.

I want you to pay attention to what I did here and why I'm so contemptuous of Aammondd's continued conduct in this debate. Keep in mind the PM he posted was his reply to my reply, and he never addressed this.

Immediately you can ascertain that I'm familiar with the view point. I've heard it before. I blatantly provide openings for him to easily commit to an actual argument and he just as blatantly ignores his ability to do so in favor of hollow words about feelings and imagined slights (this PM response of his). Or because he knows, on some level, that such an argument has little merit. Goodkind has a few words on this type of behavior, my friends. As does Rand. You can almost see Aammondd type cast as Wesley Mouch or Brother Narev.

End slight narration.

aammondd wrote:I have made no mention of rejecting the "born that way" argument on grounds that predisposition is not justification for action.

Of course you haven't. After I've readily admitted that I'm not going to touch a purely religious argument, why would you? I mean we'd agree right up until the end run of the argument based on our respective morals.

aammondd wrote:I expressly said I didnt want to get into a debate over the issue. I was simply stating my concerns its up to evaluate them and determine if its worth your time trying to deal with them or not. For you I would think not.

Fear mongering.

Wikipeida wrote:The feared object or subject is sometimes exaggerated, and the pattern of fear mongering is usually one of repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects of this tactic, sometimes in the form of a vicious circle.

aammondd wrote:I see my position as exactly the opposite from how you see it. I see you making an argument why something should be so.

Please show where I even once made an argument for gay marriage. Even once. Go on. I'll wait.

While it's clearly my default position, I haven't once created or maintained an argument in favor of it in this thread. I have almost exclusively, by wheedling, prodding, or reasoning, attempted to get you to expand any of your non-faith based objections into an actually rational argument with some type of real world examples or facts to back them up. You have yet to so this.

aammondd wrote:I present an objection and its your responsibility to overcome the objection in a rational manner or simply dismiss it as you have done.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

aammondd wrote:I'm not going to waste my time (any more than I have) trying to make my objection better in your eyes just so you can further dismiss it.

How about you lower your standards from me and simply try to make a succinct and valid objection that anyone with a taste for logic and reason could appreciate instead?



I need a devil's advocate in here please. A defense attorney for the persecuted, if you will. Would anyone be willing to defend Aammondd and argue the position that he has indeed, at some point in this thread, provided an actual non-faith based argument that wasn't simply fear mongering or FUD, and that he at some point made what could be considered an argument against gay marriage which had some amount of substance to it?

I try to be a reasonable person. If I'm wrong in my assertion that Aammondd hasn't done so, I'd like someone to point that out so that I can be sure I'm being somewhat fair in my take on the matter.

Woah, you two...

Do I believe in same-sex marriage? Yes. I can't see how two people in love, getting married, will affect me in any way (I'm not talking about any tertiary laws that may result). Religious institutions of course, shouldn't be forced to wed any couple they don't deem fit due to their rules, just the same way they can refuse to wed interfaith couples, who have the right to get married via different venues.

What do I think of someone who so strongly is against something, and then changes their mind. This one is tough, because public opinion is so strongly moving towards support of same-sex marriage, but I think anyone should have the opportunity to reflect on what they know and change their mind. Sometimes new information will come to light, or further reflection on what they thought may reveal to them that they were wrong. Of course, I do see some politicians will flip-flop and BELIEVE in something purely because there is a popular movement surrounding it (coughSarahPalincough), which I hope people can see around.

aammondd wrote:I think you are under an assumption that I'm listing my reasons because I wish to change a persons opinion about their stance.

I actually wanted to address this. I have a philosophy about debates. I think they should be about exchanging ideas and learning others views to better our own understanding. To me, it’s not about right, wrong, or changing a view, it’s about learning. A way to think of it is it is better to go into a debate thinking of the implications on your understanding not just others. Hence, I find this statement upworthy.

aammondd wrote:I expressly said I didnt want to get into a debate over the issue.

The one thing that is a bit of an issue this, I hate to tell you but, this forum is called “heated debates”. That’s what it’s for. If you wish to discuss the topic in an agreeable none debating way, I would suggest posting in the religion category, given that it is essentially your religious beliefs that implement your view.

Musikaman wrote:but feelings don't override reason

hem… I think Terry has a rule that suggests otherwise lol I get the point that feelings to change the facts. I just thought it was funny that you put it that way.

Musikaman wrote:Of course you haven't. After I've readily admitted that I'm not going to touch a purely religious argument, why would you? I mean we'd agree right up until the end run of the argument based on our respective morals.

I think this addresses the video I posted.

On one hand, I think Musikaman’s points would carry a lot more weight if they didn’t come across antagonistically as exemplified by pressuring aammondd to provide evidence for his points. On the other hand saying you don’t want something to be a debate in something that is intended to be a debate doesn’t work very well.

I want to respond to 2 points

1 when I said I didnt want to get into a debate it was in the context that I didnt want to have to take the energy to deal with continued demands where my statements are twisted by others because they read into or assume more than is actually written. Which brings me to the second point

Musikaman wrote:
Would anyone be willing to defend Aammondd and argue the position that he has indeed, at some point in this thread, provided an actual non-faith based argument that wasn't simply fear mongering or FUD, and that he at some point made what could be considered an argument against gay marriage which had some amount of substance to it?

Do any of you see what he did here he set up his own straw man just for the express purpose of knocking it down. If you dont see it Ill highlight it again.

Musikaman wrote:
Would anyone be willing to defend Aammondd and argue the position that he has indeed, at some point in this thread, provided an actual non-faith based argument that wasn't simply fear mongering or FUD, and that he at some point made what could be considered an argument against gay marriage which had some amount of substance to it?

He sets a trap asking and can dismiss any argument I make as FUD that doesn't match his standard of proof. My refusal to play along is only more fuel for him. I'm damned if I do I'm damned if I don't. I choose not to play this game.

Now against my better judgement I will give in to one point. He calls out my concern over flexible definitions in law having unintended consequences and my failure to cite proof as some fear mongering. I thought it was pretty self evident to most intelligent people that the law of unintended consequences was valid. And having concern over it is reasonable. But if I have to illustrate it for Musikaman here it goes.

Lets take the commerce clause of the US constitution. A single ruling as to what constitutes commerce wherein a single farmer producing wheat for his own consumption was deemed to be able to be regulated by the federal government has been used to expand the reach and power of the federal government so that it no longer resembles its original design. (Wickard_v._Filburn)
This is known as incrementalism and is the device of evil men to expand power until such power becomes accepted as the norm. I hope this is sufficient to justify my concern about abuse of the law in the future. I also would have thought this would be self evident with any objective view of world history and thus my objections to gay marriage because it gives a tool for which evil men may do other evil would at least be reasonable. You be the judge.

aammondd wrote:when I said I didnt want to get into a debate it was in the context that I didnt want to have to take the energy to deal with continued demands where my statements are twisted by others because they read into or assume more than is actually written. Which brings me to the second point

I get what you mean. Sometimes people assume things about statements without realizing that sometimes “a cigar is just a cigar”. It doesn’t really change the fact though that things that are posted here are pretty open to being debated on. There is also no rule saying that such things can’t be questioned, just that it needs to be polite. Debates are a strain and they are timely. They can take a lot of clarification. Sometimes people over complicate things when they don’t need to. It is the burden of a debate. But people enjoy it anyway and this is the place for it. I do think you could write something good for the religion section on it though. That area is a place where you could make such a post without it being open to debate. It’s just to say don’t debate here is like saying “don’t mail letters” in a post office.

aammondd wrote:Do any of you see what he did here he set up his own straw man just for the express purpose of knocking it down. If you dont see it Ill highlight it again.

Yes this is an example of taking an antagonistic approach. He doesn’t really need to and in my opinion it only digresses from the weight of his actual points. And frankly it’s not really relevant to the actual debate.

aammondd wrote:He sets a trap asking and can dismiss any argument I make as FUD that doesn't match his standard of proof.

Actually it’s called selective attention. He also tends to minimize a lot too which is actually pretty typical of how antisocial personalities tend to function. Though I wouldn’t conclude that Musikaman is an antisocial personality, if you study how these kinds of thought patterns work it makes it a lot easier to address them.

Aside from that, I hypothesis that Musikaman, given that a faith based argument essentially by definition has no real “evidence” to back it, is likely looking to point this out as a fault to say “see your point is invalid. Which likewise teaches him nothing but within his own perspective strokes his ego. To which I would make the point that the true “winners” in a debate are those who learn from it. Not though who tie their ego to it.

aammondd wrote:I also would have thought this would be self evident with any objective view of world history and thus my objections to gay marriage because it gives a tool for which evil men may do other evil would at least be reasonable.

I see were this point is going but I don’t think it’s terribly valid. You could say the very same thing about any given law or any given system of rules for that matter. Ironically you could even take out the constitution metaphor and use the bible as an example in the same way and say that the interpretations are only the ground work for evil people to create more evil.

Gregoriouse The Great wrote:I was actually wondering what you guys thing of this:

Thanks for posting this, I was going to but got sidetracked with life haha. I've watched it eight times and it still makes me smile.... I voted for Rudd's party today.

_-Scarlett-_ wrote:What do I think of someone who so strongly is against something, and then changes their mind.  This one is tough, because public opinion is so strongly moving towards support of same-sex marriage, but I think anyone should have the opportunity to reflect on what they know and change their mind.  Sometimes new information will come to light, or further reflection on what they thought may reveal to them that they were wrong.  Of course, I do see some politicians will flip-flop and BELIEVE in something purely because there is a popular movement surrounding it (coughSarahPalincough), which I hope people can see around.

I appreciate this comment. Just wanted to clarify though, Rudd made this change in conscience quite a while before the Federal Election, he even published a work on it, justifying his new stance and reason for changing his mind. He did this when he came in to power, by default (long story, his predecessor was kicked off the seat for some weird reasons and he got his position of PM back. So it is clear that he has done this for personal reasons, not to win the vote.

Further, I can assure you, his new opinion is not a popular one, in this country.

I did vote for him and although I know he will simply put the policy forth for the Labor Party to vote on, and he probably won't get far with it because the Labor Party is pretty old school. But I still want to see where he will take this. It might even be the start of setting a precedent, for the Australian public! Fingers crossed!!!

Very valid points, Gregoriouse, and I agree - my fondness for debating stems from a desire to learn, express myself, and exchange ideas and viewpoints.

From what I gather of aammondd's point of evil men using incrementalism, the question really being "where does it stop?" Perhaps the answer is "It doesn't." Or perhaps it is when things become too ridiculous. Suppose an obtuse person's argument might be "What's next? Changing laws so that a man can marry his dog and the hound be granted legal rights?" Frankly, I feel this is taking the fear a bit too far, despite providing a valid (if extreme) point. However, there will always continue to be changes and tweaks to laws as long as there are people who are unhappy with the way things currently are. As well, any law can be incrementally used by evil men for evil things. There are numerous issues that are currently growing due to this. However, must we limit the rights and happiness of homosexuals merely because changing those laws might -and likely will- be used for evil? This is where the other extreme comes in: where limiting rights (or what is desired to be a legal right) in an attempt to avoid negative consequences actively causes upheaval and current negative consequences to occur.
Aammondd labeled this view as being 'short-sighted' but is it really? When will the oppressed no longer bow beneath oppression? Sure, changing the laws to support homosexual marriage might cause negative consequences....but how much more negatives would be caused if it continues to be opposed? There are already marches and other "rebellion" groups and activities by outraged homosexuals and their supporters. How much longer will they remain peaceful before their outrage at being denied their rights as human beings causes them to band together for violence, and not merely protestations? I know of many homosexuals who would gladly do anything, even violence, to protect who they are as a gay person. After all, many have been treated terribly and just being their true self requires fierce bravery in many situations. Hell, if a civil war between heterosexuals and homosexuals broke out (unlikely) I would, hands down, be supportive of the homosexual side, despite preferring the opposite gender myself. Regardless of my position on this, I welcome the point of "what consequences may happen" - and my response is "what will happen if this change continues to be opposed?"

I agree Arcea-Drakkarre. Its like I said though we could just as easily say any rule is too dangerous to be made by that very point. Ironically I could even say that if there was a rule saying you could only people of the opposite sex that could be considered a rule that could be corrupted and used for evil. For all we know a rule like that could be used to repress people who love each other from formally being together.

another vid

yes the golden girls figured this out over 20 years ago.

I never once said that we needed to do nothing.

I am in complete agreement that certain legal benefits of "marriage" should not be confined to "traditional marriage". When I say certain Im not trying to imply that I have a list of things to deny them only that because laws were made under one assumed definition of marriage that the "benefit" should be identified by what attribute of "marriage"
it was intended to serve.

To illustrate say there is a law that says you must vaccinate your dog against rabies. However over time the meaning of dog comes to mean any domesticated pet. It may not be a perfect analogy but I think it serves well enough to point out that just because the definition of a thing changes it does not mean that all codified uses of the word still apply in all instances.

It also points out one of my many concerns about just taking the simple approach to solving the perceived problem. Laws are often built on assumed common definitions and why I call such "easy solutions" short sighted. Not because what you want to do is inherently evil or wrong only that because you are aggrieved (I'm talking in generalities not specifically about gay marriage) your only concern is eliminating the cause of your pain. It is the concern of thoughtful people to look beyond the now and try to answer the questions for tomorrow.

As Arcea-Drakkarre pointed out someone has to ask where does it stop. Or better yet what is the real reason for this change. Can we address the root cause differently. I'm a strong supporter of civil unions and the freedom to establish property contracts with whomever you choose. These items cover a large number of the benefits "unmarried" couples are denied under current law.

In the 60's and 70's even among heterosexuals "marriage" was often ridiculed saying "We don't need a piece of paper that says we love each other." and a number of "unjust" discriminations using "marriage" were challenged. I hear some gays spout the same argument today saying that having the "marriage" title is just one more way in which government can be used to control people.

Im getting a little tired for tonight Ill post more "debate" later.

Im not even exactly sure who your addressing. My concern is that people are being repressed when there isn't any logical reason for them to be, at least in my opinion. You made a point that this shouldn't be made legal because of how a definition can change etc. This true that this can change things but still my point is this point is so vague it can be applied to make anything look bad. Its as though the possibility of possibilities its self is the reason a reason not to allow gay marriage. Yes there is a lot of debate over that "marriage" actually is. Its a cultural thing and culture is dynamic. Sure some people are going to disagree with marriage altogether. And if they think that because they disagree no one should be allowed to then yeah I'd disagree with them lol. The idea of trying to tie that with gay marriage sounds like the "attack on marriage" thing. Which never made sense to me frankly. You have a bunch of people who want the right to get married. I would think attacking that literally speaking in an attack on THEIR possibly of getting married. There is one possible logic that I could see that would be in a respect an attack on marriage which is this: if they can't get married and socially formalize there relationship why should you be allowed to? So easily it comes to advocate repression by the unrepresented.

GTG I understand that. My "opposition" is more faith based as I said earlier but I recognize that as being insufficient "legal" grounds. I guess in trying to reconcile my faith with the secular world Im more of a "lets be sure we handle the complexities that those with the desires may not be thinking about"
Im not saying that we should not change things only that we fully understand what we are changing or at least try to understand it first.

I really like what you have pointed out in your last two paragraphs, aammondd. Very valid thoughts. I'm tired as well, so I will read it again tomorrow and respond more properly.

Gregoriouse, I particularly like your last question, and I would really love for this point to be debated a bit - because TRULY if "they" don't have the same rights, then why should "you?" I would love to hear other member's thoughts on this.

Also, I would love for us to address what some of these complexities might be so that WE can gain a greater understanding of the issue.

I agree. Think that is a great way to look at it. Another way I look at is: what business do we have in other peoples bedrooms anyway? Thinking of it in this context almost makes opposing the view of it look embarrassingly silly.

I understand you have a faith based believe. I think I mentioned before that that by definition means its not something there is "proof" for to back up a point. However, having been on the other side of the fence, I don't think there is as much going against your faith on this topic as you might think though. I know on the face of it that might sound questionable. But should there be a god who created everything, presumably he also gave you a sense of judgment to better understand things and how they work, to find your own logic and not necessarily just based on social influence. Sure we could look to the bible and say "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination" from Leviticus 20:13 as it is often quoted. And yet this is only have the verse. The rest of the verse says this: ": they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." yet, I don't think you'll be advocating this based on your faith anytime soon. If you believe in god fine. But that doesn't mean your shouldn't believe in your own understanding and judgement too.

Gregoriouse The Great wrote:yes the golden girls figured this out over 20 years ago.

The Golden Girls had a lot figured out, 20 years ago!!!

Well, that's it. The Australian public has spoken. We elected the Coalition so Tony Abbott is now running my poor excuse for a country. Here is his victory speech (I swear, this man needs to seriously write some poetry, he's so good at flitting around the issues by using some airy-fairy figurative language.... Either that or he'd make a great propaganda spinner for some ancient leader). I'm not sure he entirely knows what he is talking about, not to mention that he thinks our refugee situation is such a priority that it needs to be addressed first and foremost.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/tony-abbotts-victory-speech-20130907-2tcxc.html

He doesn't mention what is going to happen to the workplace (he plans on cutting many benefits here), education (our system should be trying to emulate others that work, like Finland, but instead we constantly revert) or the growing numbers of unemployment and welfare needs.

Sure, Tony, let's fix the roads, ban "the Boats" and get Australia back to a surplus first. Although, getting our country out of debt seems to be the only benefitial and realistic goal, we really don't have much debt compared to other nations. I am more worried about what he will do to the poor. Medicare, pension and concessions have been mentioned, I just hope he doesn't screw this country beyond recognition.

Gay Marriage issues and Gay Rights just devolved by around 30 years though, I promise you that. *Sigh*

That is terribly frustrating!

To be fair to Tony Abbot - Kevin Rudd and his poor excuse for a politcal party didn't deserve to be reelected given the shenanigans over the past three years. Policies aside the way that government behaved has been appaling. I'm not a huge fan of Tony Abbott but I also believe he's been hard done by in the media on occassion.

I would have liked the Gay Marriage issue to be solved by you know, actually allowing it because it's really only the right course of action but at the same time I think it is an inevitability in this country that it will one day happen. It might take a few more years now and that's a sad thing but I have no doubt that it will happen. I mean any opinion polls that are taken usually show that the public agree with Gay marriage.

But I wasn't going to vote for Kevin Rudd just because of that one issue. Kevin Rudd is slimy, smarmy in for himself manipulative politician to the worst extremes.

And regarding the debt levels of this country, yes they're low compared to other countries but that isn't really the point. The point is that Kevin Rudd's party was left with HUGE HUGE HUGE surpluses given to them by the prior government (tony abbott's party though he wasn't leader then) and in just three years Kevin Rudd turned it into billions of dollars as a deficit. We're not just talking about the amount of actual debt, we're also talking about the amount of Surpluses that were there that aren't anymore.

As for speeches - while I didn't see the whole speech, the bits i did see of Kevin Rudd's concession speech when he conceded the election didn't show an ounce of humility at all.

I for one am glad he is gone despite the fact that I agree with him on the gay marriage issue.

Just want to say I have not abandoned the topic just been very busy (well too busy to coherently write a my full thoughts)

Neither have I. I'm just waiting for someone to make a substantive argument on something I disagree with.

And no, that wasn't a dig at you, Mr. Almond.

alvspr. Fair enough. And you also make a few very valid points. If I had to choose though, I would not have chosen Abbott. Like I said, I am not well versed in politics or religion. I just have a serious feeling of impending doom.

It doesn't all boil down to the one issue of Gay Marriage for me, either. I am worried about the workplace, education, refugee situation, talk of amending the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the economy. I am acting (and debating) purely on intuition, not facts (as flimsy as that is) but I really only made this thread to get a good vent on, not debate with others.

You have a logical and knowledgeable opinion, for sure, but we'll see if you still agree with it in 2 or so years time.

Musikaman wrote:Neither have I. I'm just waiting for someone to make a substantive argument on something I disagree with.

And no, that wasn't a dig at you, Mr. Almond.

But calling me Mr Almond kind of is. Its all good.

aammondd wrote:

Musikaman wrote:Neither have I. I'm just waiting for someone to make a substantive argument on something I disagree with.

And no, that wasn't a dig at you, Mr. Almond.

But calling me Mr Almond kind of is. :)Its all good.

I did that on the old PI too. :p It was always meant affectionately because I could never remember which letters to double.

you know how they say "With friends like you I'd never need enemies" Please understand I don't take offense easily. (thus the smiley) And I will try harder to live up to the expectation when it comes to debate I just don't have tons of time and sometimes my reasoning is hard to explain in short bursts. Its obvious to me sometimes that I'm not being clear when people don't catch the correct emphasis from my posts. Sometimes its very hard to distill a position that has taken decades of thought into simple paragraphs and not leave it open to incorrect interpretation.

It doesn't help when things touch religious matters that my position on God is quite a bit different than what most people deal with. Even among Mormons my position is more thought out than most (not to imply superiority to any degree just that I've wrestled this quite a bit over the years)