• 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!

Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

TheNextEra said:
It's actually YOU that is in error, but then you hate FACTS.
Click to expand...
Your projection is topically irrelevant.


TheNextEra said:
Your lack of intellect into homosexuality has been proven for all to see.
Click to expand...
Again, your projection remains topically irrelevant.


TheNextEra said:
You see, you seem to think because you write long winded paragraphs that will somehow mask your lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Again, you continue to make it all about the poster ..

.. And, the wrong poster, as unless you too present a rational cogent argument, that you unjustifiably deride as "long winded paragraphs", you simply provide nothing of substantively relevant value ..


TheNextEra said:
Here's a hint, it doesn't mask it at all.
Click to expand...
.. Which thus makes this your third projection in a row.

Projecting, and making your posts all about the poster, won't win you any debate points.
 
Ontologuy said:
Your projection is topically irrelevant.



Again, your projection remains topically irrelevant.



Again, you continue to make it all about the poster ..

.. And, the wrong poster, as unless you too present a rational cogent argument, that you unjustifiably deride as "long winded paragraphs", you simply provide nothing of substantively relevant value ..



.. Which thus makes this your third projection in a row.

Projecting, and making your posts all about the poster, won't win you any debate points.
Click to expand...

Your projection is still meaningless. Try again. Does it normally take you days to come up with a useless response?
 
Deuce said:
"Foundational" meaning is irrelevant, as you yourself already pointed out. A "marriage of ideas" is a different use of the word in a different context. Marriage is a legal contract. That is a correct usage of the word in a different context. Your repeated insistence that it's incorrect doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
Erroneous, obviously.

The foundational meaning of a word in context is everything. That you deny that obvious reality forms the basis of your erroneous take on the matter.

Marriage is not "a legal contract". Marriage, in the contextual use in this thread, is a global human cultural institution between a man and a woman as husband and wife and only between a man and a woman as husband and wife, that existed as it does now from just before the agricultural revolution over 12,000 years ago, predating religion, formal governments, and the like. Today, we document that a man and a woman are married, with respect to relevant government and private enterprise recognition of their marriage, and we document that via a "marriage license". But in no way does that make marriage "a legal contract". Marriage is and always has been what it is, as I just described. Your semantics games have no power to change that.

Your last sentence is thus a projection.
 
Ontologuy said:
Erroneous, obviously.

The foundational meaning of a word in context is everything. That you deny that obvious reality forms the basis of your erroneous take on the matter.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Foundational meaning is nothing. Because words change, language evolves, perception changes. You are denying this very obvious reality.

Marriage is not "a legal contract". Marriage, in the contextual use in this thread, is a global human cultural institution between a man and a woman as husband and wife and only between a man and a woman as husband and wife, that existed as it does now from just before the agricultural revolution over 12,000 years ago, predating religion, formal governments, and the like.
Click to expand...
And it has meant different things to different people. To speak of a global human cultural institution is foolish from the start, as cultures have varied tremendously across history.

Today, we document that a man and a woman are married,with respect to relevant government and private enterprise recognition of their marriage, and we document that via a "marriage license".
Click to expand...
Proof in of itself that the cultural perception of marriage changes. Apparently people didn't always feel the need to document it. Now they do. And, really, there was a stretch where marriage was more of a sale of property. (and by property I mean the wife) As opposed to a union of two people based on this newfangled idea of "love."

But in no way does that make marriage "a legal contract".
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Marriage is a varying social and cultural institution. It is also, presently, a legal contract. It is both.

Marriage is and always has been what it is, as I just described. Your semantics games have no power to change that.
Click to expand...

I am not the one basing his argument on semantics. You are. Your entire premise is that same-sex marriage shouldn't happen because of the definition you perceive of the word marriage. You have no other argument. You are literally arguing semantics. I, on the other hand, have a solid legal and moral argument based on our very important concept of equal protection under the law, and more than a century's worth of legal precedent to back it up. It is far more compelling than your claims of some kind of universal law of defining words. What was that you were saying about projection?


Today, an acceptable usage of the word "literally" is to mean "figuratively." Figure that one out, mister definitive propriety.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom