Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
California to vote on Same Sex Marriage
Topic Started: Jul 19 2008, 08:45 PM (2,083 Views)
lb1
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Jul 21 2008, 09:12 AM
but I guess there's a lot of stuff said here that isn't very nice or very clever.

Ditto on that. I shudder sometimes at some of the nasty things said here.

lb
My position is simple: you jumped to an unwarranted conclusion and slung mud on an issue where none was deserved. Quirt 03/08/09
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 01:19 AM
No. Daniel didn't ask the question because he wanted information - he asked the question because he wanted to attack IT.

I wanted to process this for a little while before offering an opinion.

OK, I'm ready now. I'm sure you've all been waiting with bated breath.

I think Larry is right, Daniel's comment was snide and it was intended as a personal attack.

On a scale of 1 to 10, it gets a 3 on the Quirt-o-meter.

And then Larry jumped in and immediately ramped it up to a 7.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post.


Well of course you see it that way, because quite frankly you're not much smarter than Daniel. But the fact of the matter is that neither Quirt nor Jeffrey misunderstood the facts, and neither did I. *You* misunderstood the facts, and are either too stupid or too stubborn to see what most of us see quite plainly - Daniel didn't ask the question simply to get information, he asked it to take a cheap shot.

Your attempt to portray Daniel's nasty little goal as just an innocent question is an insult to anyone with enough common decency to care about innocent victims. His wife doesn't deserve to be hurt by this kind of sh!t, and neither does IT. It had absolutely nothing to do with the issue - an issue by the way that was not about Daniel, or homosexuals - but about a matter of public opinion and how it would affect law.

I have zero tolerance for Daniel. He's a vile little idiot who's long on stubborn opinion and short on brains. I have almost as low an opinion of you. But the sh!t being slung here by Daniel and the added sh!t coming from you as you try to defend your idiotic 'logic' is a little too much.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 09:46 AM
Your attempt to portray Daniel's nasty little goal as just an innocent question is an insult to anyone with enough common decency to care about innocent victims. His wife doesn't deserve to be hurt by this kind of sh!t, and neither does IT. It had absolutely nothing to do with the issue - an issue by the way that was not about Daniel, or homosexuals - but about a matter of public opinion and how it would affect law.

I hope repeating it helps some.

Larry's right, it's ridiculous to assume Daniel asked the question because he was curious and wanted an answer. It was a jab at IT, period.

Further, the issue didn't have anything to do with Daniel, but Daniel's favorite pastime is to get offended, read someone's post as a personal attack, then fling sh!t around and say he's justified for doing so.

Nothing new here.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 21 2008, 08:34 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 20 2008, 03:25 AM
Axtremus
Jul 19 2008, 10:42 PM
Larry
Jul 20 2008, 01:20 AM
In other words Daniel, what you and Kenny both are saying is that in a government of the people, by the people, what the people want doesn't matter to you, and you will support ramming the decisions of an activist court down the peoples' throat, to hell with the Constitution.

[size=5]You are an ignorant twit, Daniel.[/size] You refer to the rights of the people as "platitudes', and mock the "democratic process". All you care about is getting what you want.

It's people like you that make me that much more strongly against gay marriage.

(Just marking the start of personal attack on this thread. Carry on.)

You missed Daniel's personal attack on me, Ax. Why is that Ax?

Hi, IT,

I did not miss it. I read what Daniel wrote (up to my post that you quoted above), consciously analyzed what Daniel wrote, and came to the conclusion that Daniel has not committed a personal attack.

Had he wrote "you're a hypocrite (or an adulterer), IT," I would have called Daniel on it, but he has not.

He simply asked: "Aren't you divorced?"

I do not consider than an attack, as explained in my two other posts following the one you quoted.

Ax, you seem to read and interpret things very tendentiously for all of your claim to have "consciously analyzed what Daniel wrote."

The logical fallacy was in the ad hominem argument and the red herring. That was to be expected and does not concern me.

But the attack was in imputing bad motive and hypocrisy: "I guess there's such a thing as "sanctity of marriage" until you decide you don't like the one you have and would rather have another. Whatever."

So I really don't care what you consider a personal attack, Ax. When someone calls into question your integrity you should think it a personal attack.


The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 09:31 AM

If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment.  The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce.  Therefore, in order to re-marry, you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place.

It's possible, on limited grounds, to get a legal annulment, but that's not what the Catholic Church requires.  It requires a church-granted annulment (although a legal annulment, while harder to get, might suffice ... I really don't know).  Many Catholics get a legal divorce, then petition the Church for an annulment. 

It used to be quite hard to get the Church to grant an annulment.  Now, it's just a matter of paying the Church a sufficient bribe going through the appropriate formalities.

Quirt: You have no idea or fact regarding my history or my strenuous objections to both the legal divorce or the canonical annulment.

You also show your obvious ignorance about canon law in writing nonsense such as "you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place." You display no ostensible understanding of what constitutes a sacramental marriage in the Catholic tradition, and therefore of the grounds one might have for getting a decree of nullity should any of the necessary condition be absent.

You also have no understanding of the time line of events and therefore are prone to making fatuous statements such as "If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment." You are completely wrong about this, but I am not inclined to share any personal history and thus disabuse you of your egregious errors, given that anything one might share here is consider fair game for personal attacks in the future.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:01 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 09:31 AM

If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment.  The Catholic Church doesn't recognize divorce.  Therefore, in order to re-marry, you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place.

It's possible, on limited grounds, to get a legal annulment, but that's not what the Catholic Church requires.  It requires a church-granted annulment (although a legal annulment, while harder to get, might suffice ... I really don't know).  Many Catholics get a legal divorce, then petition the Church for an annulment. 

It used to be quite hard to get the Church to grant an annulment.  Now, it's just a matter of paying the Church a sufficient bribe going through the appropriate formalities.

Quirt: You have no idea or fact regarding my history or my strenuous objections to both the legal divorce or the canonical annulment.

You also show your obvious ignorance about canon law in writing nonsense such as "you have to go through the fiction of pretending the marriage never existed in the first place." You display no ostensible understanding of what constitutes a sacramental marriage in the Catholic tradition, and therefore of the grounds one might have for getting a decree of nullity should any of the necessary condition be absent.

You also have no understanding of the time line of events and therefore are prone to making fatuous statements such as "If he was in fact married, in order to marry MS in the Catholic Church, he'd have to get an annulment." You are completely wrong about this, but I am not inclined to share any personal history and thus disabuse you of your egregious errors, given that anything one might share here is consider fair game for personal attacks in the future.

Uh, IT ... as to whether I know what I am talking about ... I have an annulment from the Catholic Church myself.

So go sit on it and rotate.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
However, if you think I am wrong about the bases on which the Catholic Church will grant an annulment (without reference to your particular circumstances, or mine), please feel free to elaborate. With citations, of course.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jul 21 2008, 10:01 AM

YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post.

Your post did nothing to correct any misunderstand, and only confused the issue more with your making up things and calling them "facts", as well as missing the whole point of what constituted the personal attack.

You best keep out of this if you cannot contribute anything intelligent to the discussion regarding my personal life.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:06 PM
Axtremus
Jul 21 2008, 10:01 AM

YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post.

Your post did nothing to correct any misunderstand, and only confused the issue more with your making up things and calling them "facts", as well as missing the whole point of what constituted the personal attack.

You best keep out of this if you cannot contribute anything intelligent to the discussion regarding my personal life.

Once again, Headmistress, you are not likely to get the result you seek if tell people what they "best" do.

In your frenzy, you also failed to notice that I already said that what Daniel said was a personal attack.

But that's your typical modus operandi.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 10:12 AM

In your frenzy, you also failed to notice that I already said that what Daniel said was a personal attack.

But that's your typical modus operandi.

Maybe your comment of "sit on it and rotate" provided too much misdirection. :P
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
if you cannot contribute anything intelligent to the discussion regarding my personal life


Given your rather hysterical response, I'm going to cut you some slack here and assume that this was not an invitation to start a discussion about your personal life, even though it certainly could be read as such.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
He was talking to Ax. Ax is an idiot, and shares responsibility with Daniel for further promoting the nasty little bastard's attack.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 01:14 PM
He was talking to Ax.

Fair point. On that issue, I stand corrected.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:06 AM
However, if you think I am wrong about the bases on which the Catholic Church will grant an annulment (without reference to your particular circumstances, or mine), please feel free to elaborate. With citations, of course.

I have no interest in untangling your misunderstandings about annulments. You can consult the Code of Canon Law para. 1055 though 1165 and figure it out for yourself.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:12 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:06 PM
Axtremus
Jul 21 2008, 10:01 AM

YOU missed the point. I saw that Quirt and Jeffrey have a misunderstanding of the facts, so I made to post to correct that misunderstanding. That's the point of my post.

Your post did nothing to correct any misunderstand, and only confused the issue more with your making up things and calling them "facts", as well as missing the whole point of what constituted the personal attack.

You best keep out of this if you cannot contribute anything intelligent to the discussion regarding my personal life.

Once again, Headmistress, you are not likely to get the result you seek if tell people what they "best" do.

In your frenzy, you also failed to notice that I already said that what Daniel said was a personal attack.

But that's your typical modus operandi.

I was talking to Ax.

And I think it fair warning to tell people it is best to not comment on my personal life. That is pretty much a universal principle.

You keep claiming things such this my typical modus operandi -- I'd suggest you rethink what you consider to be my m.o. since you are again wrong.

edit: I see you noted your error. I'll drop it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:18 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:06 AM
However, if you think I am wrong about the bases on which the Catholic Church will grant an annulment (without reference to your particular circumstances, or mine), please feel free to elaborate.  With citations, of course.

I have no interest in untangling your misunderstandings about annulments. You can consult the Code of Canon Law para. 1055 though 1165 and figure it out for yourself.

Given your unwillingness to enter into a discussion on the topic, I'm certainly not willing to accept anything you say about something in which you so clearly have a self-interest as an article of faith.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:23 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:18 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:06 AM
However, if you think I am wrong about the bases on which the Catholic Church will grant an annulment (without reference to your particular circumstances, or mine), please feel free to elaborate.  With citations, of course.

I have no interest in untangling your misunderstandings about annulments. You can consult the Code of Canon Law para. 1055 though 1165 and figure it out for yourself.

Given your unwillingness to enter into a discussion on the topic, I'm certainly not willing to accept anything you say about something in which you so clearly have a self-interest as an article of faith.

What article of faith are you talking about? I gave you the citations you requested. If you want to disabuse yourself of your mistaken notions about the Catholic view of sacramental marriage and the grounds for nullity, you can do so. If you wish to remain in error, you can do that as well. I won't presume to tell you what is best for you to do.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
How about saving the "What is an annulment" debate for another day. And another thread.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
This thread is about the people of California and their opinion of the law on this topic. It is not about IT or any personal matter in his past life that we not only do not know nor do we need to know the details of. It is not about how badly worn out Daniel's asshole might be. It is not about whether Daniel has pecker on his breath. Nor is it about whether or not Daniel enjoys being humiliated by his sexual partner, or if Daniel is the "little woman" in his relationship. It is also not about whether or not Daniel's "husband" is as mentally handicapped as Daniel. All these are questions that could be put to Daniel with all the same "innocence" that Ax thinks was behind Daniel's question, but they have nothing to do with the topic.

We've now established (again) that Daniel is a pathetic little twit, and we've now established (again) that Ax could look at a light switch and after analyzing everything around it right down to a paint drip a foot away from it, he would conclude that it was a toaster oven.

I suggest we leave all that behind and get back to the topic of the thread.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:25 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:23 AM
ivorythumper
Jul 21 2008, 01:18 PM
QuirtEvans
Jul 21 2008, 11:06 AM
However, if you think I am wrong about the bases on which the Catholic Church will grant an annulment (without reference to your particular circumstances, or mine), please feel free to elaborate.  With citations, of course.

I have no interest in untangling your misunderstandings about annulments. You can consult the Code of Canon Law para. 1055 though 1165 and figure it out for yourself.

Given your unwillingness to enter into a discussion on the topic, I'm certainly not willing to accept anything you say about something in which you so clearly have a self-interest as an article of faith.

What article of faith are you talking about? I gave you the citations you requested. If you want to disabuse yourself of your mistaken notions about the Catholic view of sacramental marriage and the grounds for nullity, you can do so. If you wish to remain in error, you can do that as well. I won't presume to tell you what is best for you to do.

Given that I've been through the process, I'm comfortable with my knowledge of what it requires and what it means. I think it's fair to assume that your hystrionic response was because a nerve was hit in there somewhere, and that your judgment is not exactly unbiased.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
musicasacra
Jul 21 2008, 02:27 PM
How about saving the "What is an annulment" debate for another day. And another thread.

I'm sorry you've had to sit through this, M. It's none of our business, and frankly, unimportant. Just hurtful to you.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Drop it, Quirt. It's hurting Musicasacra, and for no good reason. Discuss the topic of the thread, or let this one die.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
musicasacra
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 11:29 AM
musicasacra
Jul 21 2008, 02:27 PM
How about saving the "What is an annulment" debate for another day.  And another thread.

I'm sorry you've had to sit through this, M. It's none of our business, and frankly, unimportant. Just hurtful to you.

I just don't want to help Daniel's personal attack any further along. It's already gotten off-topic and personal.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Jul 21 2008, 01:30 PM
Drop it, Quirt. It's hurting Musicasacra, and for no good reason. Discuss the topic of the thread, or let this one die.

I'm willing to do that, Larry. IT always seems to insist on getting in one last jab at the end. Maybe on this one, he'll break form.

However, I hope you will exhibit the same courtesy toward others in the future.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply