• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

based on what facts?
oh thats right NONE
you are free to have that OPINION but thats all it will ever be
 
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.
You normally spend a lot of time on your nonsense? The majority of this has no impact on what I said. I don't think anyone really cares about definitive propriety. Webster certainly doesn't.
 
Your presentation is false, obviously.

No, it's historically accurate. Not to mention the fact that your claim is a meaningless tautology "If it isn't between a man and a woman, it's not marriage".

Conservatives tend to assert the conclusion rather than argue it, and hope nobody notices. But we did notice.
 
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's strange how homophobes spend so much time thinking about male/male sex. Strange and telling.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

No it doesn't breakdown. when you stop looking at changing the definition of marriage with tunnel vision and start focusing on the "what if''s" with a little more peripheral vision you can see with greater vision what the results could be in redefining marriage.

Critical Thought, if you are a male, then it is common knowledge that males tend to see things using tunnel vision. That is of course until they are with their wives and this sweet thing walks pasts them that they desire a second look. Then they rely heavily on their peripheral vision because their head is locked in the straight forward position so not to give away to their wife that they are indeed enjoying the view. A little more peripheral vision Critical Thought in the results of redefining marriage. Incest for gays would be a slam dunk! After all at this point the moral compass has been flushed down the toilet!

I still do not see what incest has to do with homosexuality. But I am gay and I find your statements ignorant and offensive. I do not take kindly to the argument that I do not have a moral compass.
 
Last edited:
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Thank you for acknowledging there is such a thing as a slippery slope. In redefining marriage to include same sex partners automatically changes culture as we know it. Incestuous relationships are illegal because they can produce deformed children. It could be argued that the law is meaningless to homosexuals who do not have the ability to reproduce. Family Law is currently being re-written because the traditional family is no longer the standard.

Odd. I would say the push to legalize same sex marriage is because the culture has already changed.
 
"Cat" and "Dog" have inherent differences in meaning. Marriage does not. There's nothing intrinsic to marriage that requires the couple be of opposite sex. Your definition is arbitrary.
Your point is erroneous, and obviously so, as is your statement that it is "arbitrary" that marriage "is between a man and a woman as husband and wife". :roll:


Who cares? Why is the definition so critical to your cause? Why is it so important that we don't define marriage in a different way? Do you actually oppose same-sex marriage or is this literally arguing semantics over rights?
I've made it clear to you why mentally and emotionally intelligent society respects definitive propriety.

It is you and those who want a quick-fix solution to the problem of getting government and private enterprise recognition of same-sex committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions that are making a mountain out of a molehill and disrespecting definitive propriety with your oxymoronic word approach.

So, more appropriately directed, why do you care that SS-couples' relevant relationships not be called "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage"?

That is the proper descriptive term.

Why can't you just conform to definitive propriety like everyone else and stop agitating so much?

If it's because it will take too long to get every state and the IRS to recognize "homarriage" statutes, that's understandable, though not an excuse.

But if you have trouble with the proper definitive descriptive term, "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage", then my question is why does it bother you so?
 
You normally spend a lot of time on your nonsense? The majority of this has no impact on what I said. I don't think anyone really cares about definitive propriety. Webster certainly doesn't.
By calling the logical reasonable presentation I provided you "nonsense" you reveal your pre-conceived ideology at work that prevents you from accepting the truth of what I present.

That there is so much acceptance of SS-couples' romantic relationship domestic partnership civil unions but so much resistance to calling those "marriages" is evidence that this is a huge issue in America today.

Your "Webster" reference is meaningless, as many dictionary companies will simply let a small amount of time pass and then reassess word usage, and present only that, which, of course, does not mean that the definition-meaning of the word has changed, but that it is being used in a number of ways, some of which are erroneous.
 
It's strange how homophobes spend so much time thinking about male/male sex. Strange and telling.

I'm not afraid of anyone but I appreciate your concern
 
No, it's historically accurate. Not to mention the fact that your claim is a meaningless tautology "If it isn't between a man and a woman, it's not marriage". Conservatives tend to assert the conclusion rather than argue it, and hope nobody notices. But we did notice.
False, obviously.

No matter how much you repeat your obviously false statements, they still remain simply that: false.
 
Hey look 2 guys playing dress up and pretending

Gay Marriage isn't real marriage. It's sham pretend marriage.

Who defines what a real marriage is?

The sexual behavior that happens between those 2 men is filthy and disgusting.

Therefore, you think that heterosexual marriages that engage in anal and oral are "sham pretend marriages?"

Let's see just how ridiculous you are.
 
Your point is erroneous, and obviously so, as is your statement that it is "arbitrary" that marriage "is between a man and a woman as husband and wife". :roll:



I've made it clear to you why mentally and emotionally intelligent society respects definitive propriety.

It is you and those who want a quick-fix solution to the problem of getting government and private enterprise recognition of same-sex committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions that are making a mountain out of a molehill and disrespecting definitive propriety with your oxymoronic word approach.

So, more appropriately directed, why do you care that SS-couples' relevant relationships not be called "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage"?

That is the proper descriptive term.

Why can't you just conform to definitive propriety like everyone else and stop agitating so much?

If it's because it will take too long to get every state and the IRS to recognize "homarriage" statutes, that's understandable, though not an excuse.

But if you have trouble with the proper definitive descriptive term, "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage", then my question is why does it bother you so?

I have made it quite clear to you in the past that I find the term "homarriage" offensive. Why do you continue to use a term that others have told you they find disrespectful and demeaning? 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? Is this indicative of your character? Can you find no other designation for legally recognized same sex relationships than "homarriage"?
 
Who defines what a real marriage is?

The real question is "Who shouldn't" and my answer would be The Federal Government

Therefore, you think that heterosexual marriages that engage in anal and oral are "sham pretend marriages?"

Let's see just how ridiculous you are.

Nope I sure don't. There is a biological, social and economic purpose for heterosexual sex. Heterosexuality isn't defined by deviant behavior like homosexuality is however. Sodomy is disgusting, filthy behavior regardless of gender.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

well you are on your own there i could never support that type of hypocritical, hyperbolic partisan, Its part of the problem with politics today. You are making yourself look just like those you are describing.
you are factually wrong because many support gay rights and are not bible thumpers

Well your on your own beause they are in the minority!!! We all know that. Question are you denying the fact that Republicans have done this
 
False, obviously.

No matter how much you repeat your obviously false statements, they still remain simply that: false.

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

1.)Well your on your own beause they are in the minority!!! We all know that.
2.) Question are you denying the fact that Republicans have done this
1.) sorry im not in the minority of this, you are wrong
2.) of course not i never even came close to suggesting anything like that, there are SOME republicans that are like that and democrats and independants too
 
The real question is "Who shouldn't" and my answer would be The Federal Government

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.

Nope I sure don't.

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.

There is a biological, social and economic purpose for heterosexual sex.

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.

Heterosexuality isn't defined by deviant behavior like homosexuality is however. Sodomy is disgusting, filthy behavior regardless of gender.

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


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.


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.


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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom