Page 59 of 120 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169109 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 1200

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

  1. #581
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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"?



    But again, the two most relevant terms do not employ the construct "homo", so I don't get your objection.
    Forget it. If you want to use that term feel free. You want to ignore a gay person telling you it is insulting to gay people then that is your prerogative. Just do not be surprised when people respond negativly to it. I get exactly what kind of person you are.
    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.

  2. #582
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    Hey look 2 guys playing dress up and pretending

    Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage. The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.
    It is to you. Because you just see the action, the sex that disgusts you so much. You don't see the people. You don't see the love. You just see the act of having sex. To you, gay people are just that one thing. They aren't lawyers, car salesmen, soldiers, fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, Christians, Atheists, stamp collectors, video gamers, or voters. You define them by the sex. And that sex bothers you, so they shouldn't do it. Somehow, in your head, you've managed to make the love of those two people about you. Your opinion of their relationship somehow matters more than their rights.

    You don't see the people. You just see the action.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #583
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    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?
    Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #584
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    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
    Forget it. If you want to use that term feel free. You want to ignore a gay person telling you it is insulting to gay people then that is your prerogative. Just do not be surprised when people respond negativly to it. I get exactly what kind of person you are.
    I posed rational logical questions in response to your previous complaint.

    Yet instead of answering in rational logical manner, you simply say "because I said so".

    Just do not be surprised when people throw up their hands and say "you just want to call it 'marriage' and you could care less what's right".

    Then you finish with an unprovoked ad hominem.

    Throughout this thread, when they have lost on rational, logical debate, those in support of misusing the term "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships are the only ones initiating unprovoked ad hominems when they lose on point.
    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?

  5. #585
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:59 AM
    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 Deuce View Post
    Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
    Meaningless.

    I previously presented why the test for "separate but equal" does not apply here, as there is no "but equal" here, just like cats are not equal to dogs so cat owners can't rightly call their shows "dog shows".

    Before discrimination can be tested for, definitive propriety must first be applied .. and in this matter, SS-couples are not equal to the couple that marriage solely applies to: "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

    Thus, because SS-couples don't apply, there is no "but equal" here, and so the discrimination complaint about "separate" is never rightly broached.

    That is why cat owners have no rational complaint of "separate but equal" that they can't call their cat shows "dog shows" or, understandably, rightly enter their cats in a "dog show".

    It really is that simple.

    SS "marriage" proponents continue to wrongly ignore definitive propriety.

    If definitive propriety was ignored on every subject, there would be nothing but chaos in human communication.
    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?

  6. #586
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    There is a difference between offering condoms and candy bars and discussing how condoms and candy bars are uses. .
    Wow, captain obvious there…no joke. That was not what I was talking about and so is a deflection...the significance of condoms to candy bars was that if they are distributed by folks students accept as authorities then they tend to automatically think whatever is being promoted is, at minimum, accepted and for many could easily be considered as something that is being encouraged.

    If the school authorities were handing to all students dope smokers "bongs" to any students that wanted them just for “informational purposes” [ besides we know abstinence promotion regarding drugs doesn’t work, so might as well “inform” the kids”, right? ] you don't think some kids might think that the school might want them to go ahead and use them?

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Don't care one iota about parents or churches in this matter. Information is being presented. That's it. If parents want to keep their children ignorant of that information, place them in parochial schools or home school them. The school imparts information. It is up to the parents to help the child apply value to that information. .
    No, that’s not the state's right to impose that on children. You could use pornography as an extreme example. In an effort to educate, they show, for "informational purposes", the children porn...then it is up to the parents to help the child apply that knowledge? No. Stick to the job you are there to do, Teach kids math, science, grammar, etc... Some things are supposed to be left, are the prerogative of the folks who created their children. The state does not own our children, they cannot tell parents what their children, outside of academics, must know, must learn… that is totalitarian styled thinking, that's what you are promoting. We send our children to school to learn valuable skills, not learn how to put a condom on a banana. Your side hase no right to impose this ideological crap on our children… and you should know better.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Our kids certainly need this information. I have no desire to see our children remain ignorant. Do you? .
    No they certainly do not, that is just plain hogwash malarkey silliness. I have never heard positions less ignorant yet so arrogant. I want our children to learn the skills schools are supposed to teach, I will teach my children about the birds and the bees at home…it’s not like man never existed prior to sex ed in schools… Kids do not need to be taught in school how to procreate…or rather to "practice procreating", they have pretty much figured it out all through history without sex ed in school.

    Rather, we should be concentrating at school for what the kids are there for, not what liberals want to indoctrinate them with.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/ed...show.html?_r=0
    In ranking, U.S. students trail global leaders - USATODAY.com
    while all this signals more than just sex-ed-wasted opportunities to teach our kids what they really need to know to be globally competitive, it does say much about the way our liberals have taken over this American institution and done, from so many, too many, angles, such damage on our students…who are, compared to our competitors, often a grade behind level of “ignorant”. How about we concentrate on what we need to, not what your liberal fantasies want us to.


    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Actually, what you have seem is people TRY to prove that the decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM was political and you have seen me destroy that argument every time it is presented. .
    Nope, saw you get destroyed…and not partially, absolutely.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    And, since you bring it up, what we have learned from the attempts at absinence only sex education is that it doesn't work. Research shows that fully informational sex education is FAR more effective at preventing STDs and teen pregnancy.
    Checkmate. .
    And other than abstenience sex ed works? Yeah, right. It is no business of the schools, that is up to the parents, schools should be concentrating on academics, not all the social and political indoctrination. And see, this is why I am probably not going to continue to discuss issues with you. For all your experience, you do not have the first clue as to how to debate. You cannot just declare victory on your statements backed up by what? Your statements? Then declare like a checkmate? That is middle school style debate, hands on hips, chin jutted out nah nah nah naaaaah nah-ish. Not one link, no logic [ except that what you say is supposed to be just automatically true and unassailable, like, right ], no proof, not even any evidence…and then checkmate, give me a break.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Since indoctrination is not what is happening, your comment above is irrelevant. Sorry. .
    What do you mean indoctrination is not happening? Above you say the “information” HAS TO BE GIVEN WHETHER THE PARENT LIKES IT OR NOT, if the parents do not like it they can send their kids to “parochial schools or home school them.” Many parents do not have that choice, so then the state gets to tell their children what the state thinks is right or wrong, they have the children by law generally 8 hours or so a day, five days a week.

    Meriam-Webster, Indoctrinate = : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : teach 2: to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle. That would mean teaching the kids what you think about certain issues, your opinion that kids need to be taught what oral and anal and vaginal sex is, how its done, what a condom is, how to properly use it and further. Your attempt to give this instruction a value neutral appearance falls flat, of course you are teaching the kids the how to sex, taking the mystery and fear out of it, getting them one more step on their way to not first base, but home plate.

    It is not like our students rank first in the world in education…how about we quit taking the time away from the subjects they really need schooled in, that are not controversial? Nah, that would not fit your liberal agenda, so you cannot give it up. And you don’t, you say, even recognize the fact that your side is doing so, amazing.

    Force feeding them this liberal dribble…again if the schools suddenly decided to teach religion and creationism instead of concentrating on what they should be, math, English, science, history… and if people didn’t like it they could home school blah blah blah, I do not think you would be humming the same silly tune. Checkmate. [ see how silly that looks for somebody to just declare that? But its what you do, empty proclamations based on nothing but your other proclamations].
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Debated tons. Haven't seen anything from you that I haven't seen scores of times and haven't easily defeated before. .
    Yeah yeah yeah, as per usual, all talk no show.
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    It is not my fault that my opponents often present logical fallacies because that's all they've got. .
    What a joke. Why don’t you describe for us your definition of a logical fallacy… just so we’ll know what we are laughing at?
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Your experience is your experience. In mine, cons are the first ones to through out the ad homs and EASILY far nastier than libs. Mostly because these are the entirety of their arsenal of debate.

    So, now that we have dispensed with the partisan hackery, how about discussing the topic. .
    No, now you need to concentrate on your own partisan hackery… you really haven’t said anything of substance yet, what is there to debate against?
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    Difference is, I presented facts. You did not.
    I count about two statements of "fact", no actual proof of such, in your end of the whole discussion…then we gotta count up all the whoppers… and its just not worth it. Proved you wrong on 1. Giving “information” can easily be equated with acceptance if given by “authority figures” 2. That you do not care what the parents/churches think, your way must be the way or it’s the highway = indoctrination. 3. That without the information that your side gives, then students would then become “ignorant”. With the US being considered behind and slipping globally in education 4. You seem to have a high opinion of your “debate skills” that objective others may question heartily. Well, you can take the "may" out of that sentence and it would be even more accurate. 5. Much doubt implicated in the accuracy of your knowledge of what a “logical fallacy” actually is. 6. Unwilling to give anything but your partisan view of which side actually engages in ad hom and other non debate winning tactics… going on to call my views partisan hackery [ an ad hom without anything but your statements to back it up ]…laughable….
    Last edited by Gaugingcatenate; 09-10-13 at 10:04 PM.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  7. #587
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
    some people arent interested in facts like you posted and it will go ignored, they only want to practice discrimination and or bigotry.
    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

  8. #588
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    I posed rational logical questions in response to your previous complaint.

    Yet instead of answering in rational logical manner, you simply say "because I said so".

    Just do not be surprised when people throw up their hands and say "you just want to call it 'marriage' and you could care less what's right".

    Then you finish with an unprovoked ad hominem.

    Throughout this thread, when they have lost on rational, logical debate, those in support of misusing the term "marriage" to apply to SS-couples' relevant relationships are the only ones initiating unprovoked ad hominems when they lose on point.
    I'm not having a "ratoinal" debate with you. I'm telling you what I personally find offensive about a word you have chosen to use. You either respect the sensibilities of others or you don't. You have made your choice. I'm happy you can rationalize it for yourself. Won't do you a damn bit of good when it comes to actually persuading people because clearly you don't give two licks about people when you cannot even respect something as simple as not using words that could be considered offensive.
    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. #589
    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
    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 notion that marriage = man + woman is the oldest notion of what a tradition is in human history. Even the Spartans recognized this, and they had rampant homosexuality in their culture

    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.
    Why do you always have to assign an emotion to someone? You're projecting. I trust science, which says that the most optimal environment for a child is with their biological parents in a low conflict household. There is an intrinsic genetic need for people to know where they come from.

    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.
    All these special rights that gays are demanding are now trampling on my rights and the rights of others. A moral barrier has been breached.

    And yet you won't apply that to heteros in denying them marriage. Hypocrite.
    Heteros fit the normal biological criteria. Doesn't mean they aren't sinning when they perform deviant sexual acts between each other. If homosexual sex was rational and normal than evolution would have adapted by now and found a use for it.

    Except that these people are biologically or willfully refusing to engage in the reason you have argued the purpose of marriage is for.
    So when a hetero couple is married the only form of sex they ever engage in is sodomy? Oh hey that's a strawman. Not interested in those. I understand you're just really passionate about gay sex. We can agree to disagree.

    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.
    As a male I can't join an all female club. Clubs, institutions, ect usually are defined by criteria set. Usually numerous criteria. Marriage = man + woman. Always has. No reason to change it to appease 2% of the population's demands. So let the states decide. Once that vote is made, enshrine it in the state's constitution so it can never be challenged and never be changed. Like minded people can start move to state's that have like minded values, which include religious, social and economic. We'll see which states thrive and which states don't. You guys can have all the welfare recipients too, since according to Nancy Pelosi and Brack Obama they create jobs.

    Glad we got that out of the way. No one ever considered you consistent, but this solidifies that you are a raging hypocrite.
    You're going to have to come up with a better strawman than that. Our conversation is already boring. For any future replies feel free to reference this post and my entire post history to find out my positions on sham pretend gay marriage.

  10. #590
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bronson View Post
    1.) The notion that marriage = man + woman is the oldest notion of what a tradition is in human history. Even the Spartans recognized this, and they had rampant homosexuality in their culture
    2.)I trust science, which says that the most optimal environment for a child is with their biological parents in a low conflict household. There is an intrinsic genetic need for people to know where they come from.
    3.) All these special rights that gays are demanding are now trampling on my rights and the rights of others. A moral barrier has been breached.
    4.) If homosexual sex was rational and normal than evolution would have adapted by now and found a use for it.
    5.) Marriage = man + woman. Always has. No reason to change it to appease 2% of the population's demands.
    6.) sham pretend gay marriage.
    another post and no facts
    just other posters still destroying what you posted
    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

Posting Permissions

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