Are relevant analogies no longer allowed to be posted re: certain topics, or does each issue (regardless of comparative nature) have to have its own thread?

Thanks for mod input.

There is no need to recycle the incest/polygamy arguments in the same-sex marriage threads any more. If you think same-sex marriage should be il/legal, argue for it on it's own merits. If you think incest and/or polygamy should be il/legal, argue for it in a separate thread.

I understand your directive & will obviously comply (unlike others who flout forum rules of decorum), but wouldn't you agree that many (most) posters are "going down the same road" when calling others bigots, idiots, morons, etc.? That's a separate issue, of course, but the whole point is that it handcuffs a discussion to isolate related topics which put posters to the test re: their REAL attitudes.

For example, the question of forcing contractors to build abortion clinics came up, and Vibiana answered it. That revealed the consistency of her beliefs.

Do you think that that point should have only been relegated to abortion threads? The polygamy/incest marriage issues seem to be much more directly tied to the topic than cake & abortion.

Do you see what I'm getting at? The topics aren't diversions...they're meant to stimulate critical thinking & reveal consistency/inconsistency.

Seems like you want to ignore the many times people replied and told you they mean it when they don't care what any consenting adults do in the their bedroom when it comes to marriage laws. You seem to have a habit of ignoring what people actually post like they are lying to you or something. Ironic given your comments about decorum here and elsewhere.

Thank-you Groucho for finally putting an end to those constant attempts at re-directs in the homosexuality related threads.

Anal Ogies.

We all heard the wise words of the Otterville Attending Physician.

I thought you said that I was following you around. And here you are!

mickey, why don't you honestly just examine the cause of this hatred? It doesn't hurt me, and doesn't do you any good. You direct constant insults toward Christians...often working in tandem with another poster who shares an affinity for your opinions...and allege things that are patently untrue & demonstrably false. I honestly just don't get it...it poses an interesting intellectual puzzle that I can't crack. I mean, when you post things that can easily be refuted...and get defensive whenever anyone (not just me) points our an error...it's not like people are throwing rocks at your window.

Ease up, man. If offering to have friendly conversations isn't enough, what's the problem? I have lots of interactions with posters both on the forum & off...posters of all political & religious stripes. I don't have a problem with you other than your inaccurate, stereotyped statements about conservative Christians (such as comparing the PCA to the KKK...the PCA ladies with whom I shared that were heartily amused to discover how "oppressed" they are).

I bent over backward months ago to apologize for any perceived slight when I poked fun at your punctuation (after you were blasting others for being stupid). Other posters don't get bent out of shape over something so insignificant. Just let it go.

Back then you said you weren't interested in anything I had to say, but you kept reading & commenting on my posts. Isn't that a bit confusing?

You also seem to confuse disagreeing with someone as "shitting" on them. There's a big difference in calling someone names & disagreeing with their opinions. There's also a huge difference between honestly debating & providing rebuttals & simply posting snarky comments or false allegations.

You're in your forties, so you have to have had some experience dealing with others who don't share your views. What's the problem, man?

Anybody losing sleep because Creek feels shit on?

Anyone?

Jace?

Imagine how shit on gays feel due to people like him.

Was this a bad analogy?

I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with creekdipper on this one. The analogies fit on this because we are talking consenting adults and what should be allowed between them.

If creek was talking about marrying animals, household items or something that cannot provide consent, then his analogy would not hold.

I see no issues bringing up polygamy or incest if you are talking within the context of marriage, whether it be gay or straight.

None.

Umm...okay. Well, have a blessed day.

I agree. The argument has sufficient merit to be on the good side of the line of whether it's trolling. Although it's close enough to the line that I can support a mod ruling could go the other way.

Good thing that DVDTalk standards are tougher than that of SCOTUS during oral arguments.

The Justices consider such analogies to be relevant (but what do they know?).

Justice Alito: “Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license… under the logic of the decision you would like us to hand down in this case… What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” May 2013

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/j...#ixzz3civzJ287

When you get nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States, you too can ask these questions!

Anal. Heheheheheheh

Analology should be a college major.

But can't quote Justices in the hallowed threads of DVDTalk, eh?

Let's just keep discussions on the level of the midnight choir. Let anything deeper remain with the eggheads in philosophy classes at those stupid universities.

it's not credited but it's recognized socially.