Page 60 of 120 FirstFirst ... 1050585960616270110 ... LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 1200

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

  1. #591
    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
    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
    Pagan hand fasting marriages predate Sparta. Try again. Also, I was referring to Athens, not Sparta. Get it right.

    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.
    Too bad you're lying then. Not a single reputable scientific study shows the sexual preference of parents matter, only that there are two. You claim you trust science, but in reality you don't. Remember the time you posted an article that you thought said Global warming was a hoax but actually said it was real? Not a good reason to trust that you trust science.
    And gays can have a biological parent in a low conflict household. Nothing is stopping that except for discriminatory laws.

    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.
    Name a single right of yours that is being trampled by gay marriage. Try. Name ONE. You can't because there are no such rights being trampled.

    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.
    Once again, you refuse to apply your criteria. Heteros that engage in what you call deviancy are still allowed to be married under your criteria. That makes no sense. The only reason you are against gay marriage on sexual deviancy grounds is not because of sexual deviancy, it's because you're a bigot. If you were consistent, you'd apply the same grounds to deny marriage to heteros. But you admitted you are not consistent. The real reason you are against gays is because you're against gays. Not because of sexual activity, but some other reason you aren't willing to share.

    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.
    You claimed that gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because they practice sexual deviancy. Therefore, if we applied your criteria, straights who do the same should be barred. The fact that they can engage in non-sexual deviancy is irrelevant here because your argument dictates that sexual deviancy in itself is grounds to deny marriage. The fact that you are now turning on your own argument is quite amusing as you have nothing to stand on.

    As male I can't join an all female club.
    You can be declared a women with hormones before a gender change and therefore be allowed.

    Clubs, institutions, ect usually are defined by criteria set. Usually numerous criteria. Marriage = man + woman. Always has.
    Is that why pagan handfasting that allowed gay unions that predates the city state of Greece doesn't quality? Always has only starts from Greece and that all time before doesn't count? Do you realize just how bad you look right now?

    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.
    And there you go with the bureaucratic mess. We allowed interracial marriage even though they weren't a majority. What's your point? Besides, demographics alone suggest you will lose this fight. Hatred for gays is dying out. 35 and younger have an overwhelming tolerance and support for gay marriage. Thus, you really want to go with a state's right voting where time ensures that every state will have gay marriage? You haven't even tried to think this through.

    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.
    I'm just reaffirming what people already believe about you. You make up your own criteria when you feel like it, disregard it when it's not supporting you, fail to think through your arguments and squirm when logic is applied to your claims.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #592
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    Whoever said otherwise...you don't "know" either, in fact even less --you only "believe" also. I know that no orthodox religion or long lasting government has held this belief of yours down through the ages and actually most, if not all, specifically advocated against this kind of thing...ever wonder why? Its not like they were all in communication and did not make this decision independently... it was with good reason that they figured out this to be true..it was universally condemned.

    Your folks that want this are just selfish, gotta have it types... it is not us being mean, it is you wanting more than is necessary.


    Until recent times, homosexual relationships were accepted in all corners of the globe, including but not limited to Greece, Africa, Egypt, China, Japan and other Asian countries, Kings of England, Rome, even Arab and Persian Muslims of more recent times....It is nothing new.

  3. #593
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,708

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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 can keep repeating pseudointellectual nonsense but this is an argument over rights, not semantics. Your definition isn't important. Definitive property must be applied first? No. No it doesn't. And marriage "always meant" one man and one woman of the same race. Before that it "always meant" one man and his property. This idea you have that definitions of words are universal and unchangeable is outright stupid. Hell, it's not even important to the discussion.

    The US government doesn't have the authority to make gender-based classifications without showing an important state interest in doing so.

    Articulate said interest.
    Last edited by Deuce; 09-11-13 at 01:22 AM.
    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. #594
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Right of conscience is often written out in state constitutions. It means you nor anyone else has the right to make laws that forces another to violate his most secret core and sanctuary.


    "Secret core and sanctuary"? Who defines this when it comes to a law? My secret core and sanctuary says that evangelical conservatives are destroying my country and I should not have to tolerate them.. They live in a world of their own and should have a world of their own to live in..... So how about that--my core and sanctuary...

  5. #595
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    No, with regard to your first sentence, as there are mentally and emotionally intelligent people who are not biased but who recognize the word usage oxymoronic quick-fix error being attempted by political factions that would completely disrespect definitive propriety, definitive propriety that forms the foundation of our use of language to effectively communicate perceptions and concepts existing both today and in the past.

    Definitive propriety requires that we honor the meaning of words and not try to purposely corrupt their meaning to make them mean other than what they truly mean.

    For example, when differentiating between sex-gender, we do not call adult females "men", we call them "women", because if we corrupted the meaning of "men" to include females then the word "men" would no longer be of value as a descriptive word in both the past and present.

    Both men and women have the same human rights, however, they are simply named differently.

    In your example, yes, both a cat show and a dog show are a show, just like both men and women are people.

    As you go on to say, we still call them shows, .. and each cat show and dog show can create the same contests and prizes and the like with descriptions appropriate to the cat/dog show (best purr, loudest bark, best cat in show, best dog in show, etc.). But, the dog show and the cat show are still kept separate and referenced with separate terms.

    So when speaking of cat shows and dog shows they are always called "cat shows" and "dog shows" because the compound term is foundationally descriptive. They simply aren't called "shows" when being publically presented and referenced to avoid understandable confusion.

    Likewise, we don't call adult females "men", even though the syllable "men" is found in both the word "men" and the word "women".

    The word marriage has always been since its inception just before the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". That's what the word means. And comparatively microscopic numbers of occurrences of erroneous applications of the word throughout history from time to time in no way changes what marriage truly is any more than the similarly rare instance of calling a cat a dog justifies entering that cat in a dog show.

    But are the committed romantic relationships of same-sex couples any less a domestic partnership civil union than the committed romantic relationships of opposite-sex couples?

    Absolutely not, just like cat shows are every bit as ethically legitimate as dog shows.

    OS and SS couples' relationships should both be recognized by government and private enterprise.

    However, with respect to definitive propriety, the foundational test of words and their meaning, a test that comes first prior to ever speculating whether discrimination has occurred, an SS-couple's committed romantic domestic partnership civil union is simply not a "marriage" any more than a female adult is a "man".

    A female adult is a "woman".

    Both "woman" and "man" have the "man" syllable.

    And thus I have suggested "homarriage" to be the word used to describe the committed romantic domestic partnership civil union of a SS-couple.

    You have suggested "same-sex marriage".

    It seems to me that the only task left is indeed to create a new word that has meaning here in this case and create domestic partnership civil union statutes in every state and recognized by the federal government so that on the 1040 form etc. there would be added a separate status box called "homarried" or whatever is decided.

    When we respect definitive propriety we progress and become smarter.

    When we ignore definitive propriety and thus disrespect it, we regress, and dumb ourselves down.


    A rose by any name is still a rose...

  6. #596
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

    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.

    Oh ****--here we go again....What can that man do to the other man that you can't do to your wife? Huh?

  7. #597
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    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.


    le….
    Well in a country that powers that be think creationism is science what do you expect

    Religious conservatives on Texas textbook review panels criticize proposed science books

    One reviewer even suggested a rule requiring that each biology book cover “creation science.” That would run counter to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The decision banned the teaching of creationism in public school science classes.

    Religious conservatives on Texas textbook review panels criticize proposed science books | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News

  8. #598
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

    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. 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.



    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.



    No need. The biological makeup of those marriages do not change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?



    /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.


    Ahhhh-there it is, finally.... Sin is sin by whose moral and religious values? Yours? What about the moral and religious values of the rest of the country? Who made you God? BTW--what you keep saying is that God made a mistake by creating homosexual people.. My God makes no mistakes..

  9. #599
    Guru
    Juanita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    now? COLORADO
    Last Seen
    04-27-16 @ 03:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    3,981

    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.


    Of course you do...The posts are to provoke him.. It is a tactic used by bullies..

  10. #600
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    29,261

    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
    I'd dress up for my wedding too

    Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage. The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.
    I really dont think about gay sex that much

Posting Permissions

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