Page 46 of 49 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 460 of 485

Thread: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

  1. #451
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    If they were to argue purely on what the definition of the word marriage is then you would still lose. All that it would take to dismiss your definition of marriage is to prove that...

    1: Gay marriage has happened in the past. (which it has) Wiki ~ Same-sex marriage ~ in the Ancient section

    2: That the definition of the word marriage has changed in the past. (which it has) Marriage between the races was once considered "un-natural" and as such the definition of marriage included that concept.

    3: That there are other, different types of marriages. (which there is) Polygamy, monogamy, and polyandry.

    4: That the use of marriage has changed. (which it has) Marriage was once used as a way to make Houses stronger and or to settle disputes and love had absolutely nothing to do with marriage.
    No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060184038
    Marriage is and always has been in the time-honored cultural tradition a committed union "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's the definition of marriage, the definition of marriage, and that's a given no-brainer, not a matter for rational conjecture. Historical tiny anectdotal occurences of ignorant or brash violations do not in any way change the definition of marriage.
    When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.

    Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.

    Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.

    Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.

    back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.

    CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  2. #452
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.
    Speaking of which...

    Webster redefines marriage to include gays - UPI.com

    back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.
    Why do you make this stuff up? It's hard to take someone seriously when they embarrass themselves by pretending to know what they are talking about and completely fabricate things to support their arguments. Seriously, how weak is your argument that you have to lie?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  3. #453
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060184038

    When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.

    Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.

    Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.

    Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.

    back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.

    CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.

    The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.

    I cannot wait till people like you flip your lids when SSM is legalized across the country. What a joyous day that will be. Hope you don't kill yourself on that day.

  4. #454
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    That defense of Prop 8 is not what Prop 8 is about.
    There is no defense of Prop 8. It is a question in search of an answer. If the Supreme Court does not strike it down on the basis of prejudice, then they will strike it down on the basis of incoherence.

    What is the purpose of denying the use of one word — "marriage" — to a class of people deemed by the state itself fully capable of taking on all of the child-raising and other responsibilities associated with the word?

    The best you can do is try to change the topic and ignore the reality that nobody on your side can come up with a good answer.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 02-13-12 at 04:36 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  5. #455
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,858
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, as I accurately stated here: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1060184038

    When marriage, the definition of which is "a man and a woman as husband and wife", which it was from its inception and is now all over the planet, occurs 99.9999999+ percent of the time and an aberration erroneously referred to as marriage occurs 00.0000001- percent of the time, the aberration in no way redefines the word marriage. It would be idiodic to think that it does.
    Just because something doesn't happen often does not mean that it does not happen or should not happen in the future. Your attempt to discard the past in order to make your point is disengenous at best. It was once aberant behavior for two people of different races to marry or have sexual intercourse. With your arguement a white person and a black person should not beable to marry or have sexual intercourse. See how silly your arguement is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Erroneously referring to something as marriage does not make that aberration marriage. I mean, you can't just call a goose a duck and expect Websters to change the definition of duck! That's crazy thinking.
    At one point the definition for the term "gay" meant "happy". The definition of the term "faggot" once meant "a bundle of sticks". Now adays the definition in websters for those two words includes homosexuals even though at one time neither one had anything to do with homosexuals. So even if we were to accept your definition of marriage as being the original definition (which its not) there is nothing to say that the definition cannot change or cannot include homosexuals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Those aberrations that you cite will have to use a different word than "marriage" to describe them, as they are simply not marriage.
    Tell that to the priest that married two men.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your way of thinking is like saying there are 99.99999999+ generally acceptable types of human behavior but murder occurs comparatively 00.0000001- percent of the time, therefore murder must be classified as acceptable human behavior. Ludicrous.
    What is considered acceptable human behavior is generally determined by if that behavior harms society in some way shape or form. Gay marriage will not harm anyone. Where as murder does. Just because you personally find GM unacceptable behavior does not mean that it is unacceptable behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    back in the late 1960s/early 1970s gay leaders began the brainwashing process of coining and inundating the media with oxymoronic phrases like "SSM", "same-sex marriage", gay-marriage, hoping that in a couple generations people who found such phrases crazy back then would today be used to them, though they remained oxymoronic. Indeed, sadly there are a number of people now who suffer from such mind-control, and scarily they are in high places.
    I'm quite sure that those against inter-racial marriages said the same exact thing. Look how that turned out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    CA's Prop 8 functioned in a way to bring people to their senses who had been brainwashed that the word "marriage" ludicrously meant in addition to a man and a woman as husband and wife.
    No, Prop 8's function was to deny marriage to gay couples because a bunch of religious folk's bible told them that being gay is against God. Which is really ironic when you're using terms like "brainwashing".

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    The question now is whether enough brainwashing mind-control damage has been done to cause a huge wrong to occur, as I presented in the linked post here.
    No wrong has been committed. There has yet to be any rational or reasonable arguement against gay marriage beyond that of people thinking that "its just wrong!". When you do come up with a rational arguement against gay marriage then you can claim that a wrong has been committed. Until then you're just sol.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  6. #456
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,664

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    Sorry but a person that believes in SSM is no Conservative. He might be a RINO though
    Can a conservative not be a free thinker? Must they always be in lockstep with what they are told to think?

    I am socially liberal to a degree, I confess. But in all other matters I am a pretty conservative. I am pro-gun, pro-life, anti-government cheese, etc. But I have no problem if Adam marries Steve. Won't turn me queer at all. Won't affect my life, my marriage, my wife, my family. Nothing. No affect on me at all.

    So why would I want to deprive someone else of their happiness if it has no affect on me whatsoever? Because a church told me so? Because the guys at the lodge will call me a queer lover if I don't flock with the rest of the sheep?

    I don't care who marries who. It's just a bull**** issue meant to deflect us from the REAL issues of the day that need addressed.

    I'm cool with you doing your thing here bashing gays at every oppertunity given. That's you. That's who you are.

    But I was raised better. Just sayin'.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  7. #457
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Speaking of which...

    Webster redefines marriage to include gays - UPI.com



    Why do you make this stuff up? It's hard to take someone seriously when they embarrass themselves by pretending to know what they are talking about and completely fabricate things to support their arguments. Seriously, how weak is your argument that you have to lie?
    That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

    If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

    If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  8. #458
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

    If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

    If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
    Marriage is whatever the culture decides it to be. Marriage used to be defined, and still is in many parts of the world, as the union between a man and as many women as he can afford. Serial monogamy used to be uncommon but now a man or woman can divorce and remarry as many times as they would like. Same sex marriage existed for hundreds of years in some cultures around the world until the Abrahamic religions spread into those regions.

    But all that is irrelevant because your argument is nothing but an appeal to tradition fallacy.

    It is logically incoherent. The whole "this is right because we've always done it this way" is a poor argument. You know why? Because I can simply argue that same sex marriage is an innovation. Innovations change long standing traditions and are often valuable changes in policy.

    Now I'm sure your probably don't care about logic, but it kind of disseminates your argument. For more information look here....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 02-13-12 at 05:29 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  9. #459
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,124

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    That Websters has most certainly erred here is likely politically/economically motivated, and in no way should anyone mistake usage for definition.

    If a list of all usages ever uttered for the word "marriage" were listed, that would in no way make them accurate.

    If CA's Prop 8 is not upheld, it won't be about right .. it will be about might, both political and economic.
    An independent judiciary exists to protect the rights of a minority against the tyranny of a majority. That is how the founding fathers envisioned it.

    The courts are where you actually have to make a decent case. You don't have one, so you have to make up crap and pretend like you have one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  10. #460
    Sage
    UtahBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    12-03-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,687

    Re: Court: CA gay-marriage ban is unconstitutional

    It was always destined to be decided by the courts......just proves that majority opinion of ordinary citizenry cannot override the pursuit of happiness of minority groups.
    With all the REAL problems we have, it amazes me that some people are still so worried about such things that it becomes the defining facet of their lives.
    Oracle of Utah
    Truth rings hollow in empty heads.

Page 46 of 49 FirstFirst ... 364445464748 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •