Page 58 of 120 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068108 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 1200

Thread: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

  1. #571
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    "Since it's not a between a man and woman, it's not a real marriage".

    I love homophobes and their tautologies. And I love how their invalid arguments elude them.
    ask him to provide FACTS that make your statement false, his posts are easy to destory because there arent any
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  2. #572
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I have made it quite clear to you in the past that I find the term "homarriage" offensive.
    Your objection repeated remains meaningless without an explanation.

    Why do you find the term "homarriage" offensive?

    Do adult females find the term "woman" offensive or complain about not being rightly with respect to definitive propriety to be able to call themselves a "man"?

    The term "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" is applicable, accurate, and sufficiently descriptive.

    There's nothing inherently offensive about the term.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Why do you continue to use a term that others have told you they find disrespectful and demeaning?
    For one, because I don't trust that they are telling the truth here as it is clear they are more compelled to a political power-play agenda than in doing what's right.

    For another because "homarriage" is accurate and descriptive and satisfies definitive propriety.

    And, of course, lastly, because neither you or them are either my god or my own mind, and I won't be harassed into being silent on a matter that I know is correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Do you have so little courtesy that you will continue to try to belittle people and their relationships to impose your point of view on them?
    This is both a projection and an attack upon a strawman.

    Your attempt to use the word "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships is discourteous to definitive propriety respecting society in general.

    You are attempting to belittle society's ability to solve the problem accurately, attempting to impose your point of view on society.

    People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Is this indicative of your character? Can you find no other designation for legally recognized same sex relationships than "homarriage"?
    Now you've crossed the line into ad hominem territory.

    Thus your statement here deserves no response.
    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?

  3. #573
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by head of joaquin View Post
    "Since it's not a between a man and woman, it's not a real marriage". I love homophobes and their tautologies. And I love how their invalid arguments elude them.
    Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site.
    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?

  4. #574
    Sage
    Somerville's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    On an island. Not that one!
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    9,820

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site.

    Naming you as a "homophobe" does seem to be appropriate after reading thru a 'few' of your posts. You are the one who constantly insists that your words fit all meanings of "definitive propriety". Others who read your words may make a judgement as to your biases based solely upon your words on this forum.
    “And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”
    ~ James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

  5. #575
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Your objection repeated remains meaningless without an explanation.

    Why do you find the term "homarriage" offensive?

    Do adult females find the term "woman" offensive or complain about not being rightly with respect to definitive propriety to be able to call themselves a "man"?

    The term "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" is applicable, accurate, and sufficiently descriptive.

    There's nothing inherently offensive about the term.



    For one, because I don't trust that they are telling the truth here as it is clear they are more compelled to a political power-play agenda than in doing what's right.

    For another because "homarriage" is accurate and descriptive and satisfies definitive propriety.

    And, of course, lastly, because neither you or them are either my god or my own mind, and I won't be harassed into being silent on a matter that I know is correct.



    This is both a projection and an attack upon a strawman.

    Your attempt to use the word "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships is discourteous to definitive propriety respecting society in general.

    You are attempting to belittle society's ability to solve the problem accurately, attempting to impose your point of view on society.

    People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.



    Now you've crossed the line into ad hominem territory.

    Thus your statement here deserves no response.
    I find it offensive because the term "homo" is generally used as a derogatory synonym for "faggot" in most socially conservative circles. Does that satisfy your curiosity for why I do not like it? It may not be how you intend it, but it is how it is received by people who have been called such names and it makes it entirely insensitive to the very people you intend to adopt it.
    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.

  6. #576
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 04:50 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    3,195

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    We agree. The Federal government should get out of marriage entirely and let people define marriage as they see fit in their own lives. That doesn't mean your statement that they're sham marriages is correct.
    I didn't say people get to define it in their lives however they want. I would outlaw gay marriage. It's not real marriage, as the notion of what has been known since it became the oldest institution. The real objective by The Left is not "equality". It's the breaking down of the traditional family. Creating a genderless society. Gay Marriage doesn't make any improvements on the institution that demand change. Why do gays need to call their unions marriage to begin with? If this is new, then why can't they create their own institutions, their own culture, ect. That's not what they want to do though. They demand we all change our opinions and cater to their demands. I refuse. People like me are now being targeted by people like you. This issue is a moral breach. Children are involved in these frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community calls their relationships.

    All of these relationships are based on morally deviant sexual behavior. We're never going to agree. You have a different set of standards and a different set of values, which is why this country needs a clean break, state by state, where the people get to decide what marriage is for their society. We voted for those standards in CA and that vote was overturned by radical judges and extremists. A compromise needs to be made. Every vote in the state on the definition stands. Make it Constitutional so like minded people don't have to live in the world you reprobates are creating.

    Then you are a hypocrite. You bash homosexuality on "deviant sexual behavior" as your criteria to deny them marriage but refuse to apply the same standards to heterosexual marriage. You are by your own words a hypocrite. Anal and oral is fine for hetero, but not for homo. That makes no sense.
    Homosexual sex is deviant behavior. The hole they put it in is dirty and filthy. Animals jam it in there irrationally. It's a form of torture in most societies.

    Therefore we should ban or dissolve marriages that either will not or cannot produce children. Once women pass menopause, their marriages should be dissolved. Also, any marriage that fails to produce a child in 9 months should be dissolved too. I don't think you're going to agree with that, but you are by your own criteria a hypocrite.
    No need. The biological makeup of those marriages do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?

    Then you should be for dissolving heterosexual marriages who engage in it. That's if you even care about being consistent.
    /yawn nope

    Those heterosexuals can still biologically propagate the species. Nothing about their union changes the definition of what marriage is. Sodomy is sodomy. Sin is sin.

  7. #577
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Somerville View Post
    Naming you as a "homophobe" does seem to be appropriate after reading thru a 'few' of your posts. You are the one who constantly insists that your words fit all meanings of "definitive propriety". Others who read your words may make a judgement as to your biases based solely upon your words on this forum.
    Meaningless ad hominem.

    You're simply angry that you don't support doing the right thing.
    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. #578
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,808

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    It's not real marriage, as the notion of what has been known since it became the oldest institution.
    Gay Marriage doesn't make any improvements on the institution that demand change.
    They demand we all change our opinions and cater to their demands.
    People like me are now being targeted by people like you.
    This issue is a moral breach.
    Children are involved in these frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community calls their relationships.
    All of these relationships are based on morally deviant sexual behavior.
    which is why this country needs a clean break, state by state
    that vote was overturned by radical judges and extremists.
    Homosexual sex is deviant behavior. The hole they put it in is dirty and filthy. Animals jam it in there irrationally. It's a form of torture in most societies.
    still waiting on facts to support your false claims?
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #579
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    I find it offensive because the term "homo" is generally used as a derogatory synonym for "faggot" in most socially conservative circles. Does that satisfy your curiosity for why I do not like it.
    But the terms "homosexual marriage" and "homarriage" do not use the term "homo".

    So, no, I still don't understand your contention.

    Even if you don't like the simpler term "homarriage", what's wrong with the term "homosexual marriage"?


    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    It may not be how you intend it, but it is how it is received by people who have been called such names and it makes it entirely insensitive to the very people you intend to adopt it.
    But again, the two most relevant terms do not employ the construct "homo", so I don't get your objection.
    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?

  10. #580
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    I didn't say people get to define it in their lives however they want. I would outlaw gay marriage. It's not real marriage, as the notion of what has been known since it became the oldest institution.
    Which one is that? Pagans had gay marriages that predate Judaism by thousands of years. If we want to go with the oldest institutions, gay marriage is acceptable. And gay relations were normal in the birth place of Western Civilization.

    The real objective by The Left is not "equality". It's the breaking down of the traditional family. Creating a genderless society. Gay Marriage doesn't make any improvements on the institution that demand change. Why do gays need to call their unions marriage to begin with? If this is new, then why can't they create their own institutions, their own culture, ect. That's not what they want to do though. They demand we all change our opinions and cater to their demands. I refuse. People like me are now being targeted by people like you. This issue is a moral breach. Children are involved in these frankenstein experiments that the LGBT community calls their relationships.
    It must really burn you up that no respectable study has ever found any differences to child development from two gay parents. Furthermore, if you actually believed in less government (which you don't), you'd be for my plan to remove government from marriage.

    All of these relationships are based on morally deviant sexual behavior. We're never going to agree. You have a different set of standards and a different set of values, which is why this country needs a clean break, state by state, where the people get to decide what marriage is for their society. We voted for those standards in CA and that vote was overturned by radical judges and extremists. A compromise needs to be made. Every vote in the state on the definition stands. Make it Constitutional so like minded people don't have to live in the world you reprobates are creating.
    And in the process seriously screw up legal rights across the country. I thought you were for making life easier, not harder. Less red tape, not more. Seems you have no problem inflicting a huge bureaucratic mess upon the entire country when it suits your needs. I still see you are unwilling to apply your criteria against heterosexual that you do against homosexuals. That again makes you a hypocrite and quite possibly a bigot. If sexual deviancy is grounds to deny marriage for homosexuals, it should be for heterosexuals. You refuse to argue this.

    Homosexual sex is deviant behavior. The hole they put it in is dirty and filthy. Animals jam it in there irrationally. It's a form of torture in most societies.
    And yet you won't apply that to heteros in denying them marriage. Hypocrite.

    No need. The biological makeup of those marriages do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?
    Except that these people are biologically or willfully refusing to engage in the reason you have argued the purpose of marriage is for.

    Therefore you are turning on your own argument by saying those who cannot or will not have children shouldn't have their marriages dissolved. Since you have argued that gays can't have kids and therefore shouldn't be allowed to get married, you should also argue that straights who do the same should have the same rules applied to them. You refuse to. Thus, you a hypocrite.

    /yawn nope
    Glad we got that out of the way. No one ever considered you consistent, but this solidifies that you are a raging hypocrite.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Posting Permissions

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