Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Meaningless, all of your reply .. except to point out that you know longer state that you wish "me and my ilk" death.

    Regardless, I assure you, 100 years from now, essentially no same-sex couples will want to "marry".

    And, nobody will be "toasting" anyone about it.
    Well it's a good thing I don't by what your selling, cause in 100 years there will still be SSM. Regardless of what archaic thoughts you and your ilk will have. But no, I don't wish you death, I hope you change. Either way, you mean very little to me regardless whether you die off or not.

    So if you don't like what I post, you can either ignore it, or go pound sand. Your choice.

  2. #22
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Well it's a good thing I don't by what your selling, cause in 100 years there will still be SSM. Regardless of what archaic thoughts you and your ilk will have. But no, I don't wish you death, I hope you change. Either way, you mean very little to me regardless whether you die off or not. So if you don't like what I post, you can either ignore it, or go pound sand. Your choice.
    Or, I can call you on your many errors of both fact and ethics.

    My choice.
    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. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    Or, I can call you on your many errors of both fact and ethics.

    My choice.
    It's actually YOU that is in error, but then you hate FACTS. Your lack of intellect into homosexuality has been proven for all to see. You see, you seem to think because you write long winded paragraphs that will somehow mask your lack of knowledge. Here's a hint, it doesn't mask it at all.

  4. #24
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    And, talk about pseudointellectual presentation, here you meander from an erroneous premise to erroneously conclude that the foundational meaning of the word "marriage" isn't "between a man and woman as husband and wife" but is "indicative of a particular legal contract".

    Pseudointellectuals often meander from relevant apples to irrelevant oranges, never realizing their error.



    And, since your premise about apples is expressed in irrelevant and thus meaningless oranges terms, your oranges conclusions is erroneous as it does not apply to apples.

    "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.
    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.

  5. #25
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    oh look another day and facts havent changed same sex marriage does exist and it is indeed in fact marriage

    Man reality and facts are funny that way, opinions have no impact on them.
    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

  6. #26
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    It's actually YOU that is in error, but then you hate FACTS.
    Your projection is topically irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Your lack of intellect into homosexuality has been proven for all to see.
    Again, your projection remains topically irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    You see, you seem to think because you write long winded paragraphs that will somehow mask your lack of knowledge.
    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 ..


    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Here's a hint, it doesn't mask it at all.
    .. 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.
    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?

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    08-29-17 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    16,575

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    Your projection is still meaningless. Try again. Does it normally take you days to come up with a useless response?

  8. #28
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,515

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    "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.
    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.
    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?

  9. #29
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,775

    Re: Judge: June trial for Pennsylvania gay marriage lawsuit

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    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.
    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.
    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".
    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".
    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.
    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 by Deuce; 12-11-13 at 10:20 PM.
    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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