View Poll Results: Against SSM? If family member came out to you, would you change your mind?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, never.

    10 29.41%
  • No, but possibly at some point.

    0 0%
  • Yes.

    4 11.76%
  • I have gay family member(s), I'm still against SSM

    2 5.88%
  • Squirrel

    18 52.94%
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 130

Thread: Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

  1. #101
    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: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL

    2.)The argument is valid, and is not nothing. iLOL


    3.)Just as I have.
    Where we differ is that you have also posted fallacies, where I have not.



    4.)Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
    Funny you think it is.



    5.)Fact is that they have wrongfully stolen a name, changed a definition and applied it to what they want.
    Does not change that fact that it really isn't or that it was wrong to so.



    6.)No it hasn't been "proven".
    Nor could it be, as it obviously isn't.
    Judicial activism doesn't change the facts.


    7.)As I have no hurt feeling over the issue so clearly you know not of what you speak.
    Opinion yes, as we all have them.


    8.)Still wouldn't change the fact that it wasn't and equality, rights, or discrimination issue.


    9.)Already proven.
    That is why you are dismissive. You can not counter that which has been provided.
    1.) yep factually exposed.
    2.) lies are not valid arguments
    3.) please point out the fallacies, I cant wait to read this LMAO
    4.) another deflection about the truth, yet thread history proves you wrong.
    5.) 100% false the name was never stolen lol
    your opinion of what it is, is also meaningless and it actually supports the fact the name was never stolen. What marriage is, is a INDIVIDUAL thing, it doenst belong to you or anybody else, thats what proves that what you think it is, it is for YOU. What others think it is, it is for THEM. its ALWAYS been that way. You make it easy to expose you. If you think it has factually been stolen PLEASE PLEASE post factual prove of this, this is another thing id LOVE to read

    thanks again for proving yourself wrong

    6) yes it has, says reality and the cases that have already gone that way LMAO
    7.) accept i can use logic, reality and facts to support my posts and you cant
    8.) no matter how many times you repeat the lie it wont become true
    but you are free to believe whatever you want, doesnt effect me of the facts one bit

    9.) you have provided zero prove and EVERYTHING you posted was countered and proved wrong, i did nothing dismissive. LMAO

    BUT you did, tell me why you didn't quote ALL of my post, hmmmmmm very telling, seems you left some stuff out, probably because it proved you wrong LOL
    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

  2. #102
    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: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Manta View Post
    I was against gay marriage and still am as far as my religious beliefs go. It is a sin and I will never recognize it as anything real or tangible. I however do realize that equal treatment under our secular law is to important. The sin is between them and God, as it is for all as I am a sinner as well. So I support SSM even though I will never recognize it as being under God.
    this is the basic, intelligent, objective, rational, unselfish, non-bigoted, common sense outlook that every AMERICAN should have if they understand anything about this country.
    Good Job!
    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

  3. #103
    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: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I agree. The USSC should rule for or against it based on the will of the people as it was recorded into law during the various times of the signing and amending of the US Constitution.
    no the will of the people should NOT be what it is based on alone LOL

    if that was the case equal rights for woman and minorotoes may just be passing or interracial marriage. NO thanks
    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

  4. #104
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    What do you mean by that? That's a very ambiguous statement.
    Not incredibly so. I mean precisely what it says. The People of this nation are soveriegn and from time to time amend the Constitution by which we are governed. The USSC should make its' rulings based not upon their own particular religion (which is what legislators or voters may do as they are free actors), but rather upon the will of the people as it was written into the Constitution.

  5. #105
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,148

    Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    So, homosexuality is not a sin, but homosexuals should not be allowed to marry?

    Homosexuality (the condition of being attracted to members of the same gender) is not sinful, no. Any more than me being attracted to women other than my wife is inherently sinful. Acting upon those impulses is a different story (and a whole thread in and of itself). I have no problem with homosexuals marrying. I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples. As per this thread, my belief in this regard does not change simply because people I love are themselves homosexual, any more than my opinions on marriage are changed because people I love are attracted to people other than their spouses.

  6. #106
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    1.) yep factually exposed.
    2.) lies are not valid arguments
    3.) please point out the fallacies, I cant wait to read this LMAO
    4.) another deflection about the truth, yet thread history proves you wrong.
    5.) 100% false the name was never stolen lol
    your opinion of what it is, is also meaningless and it actually supports the fact the name was never stolen. What marriage is, is a INDIVIDUAL thing, it doenst belong to you or anybody else, thats what proves that what you think it is, it is for YOU. What others think it is, it is for THEM. its ALWAYS been that way. You make it easy to expose you. If you think it has factually been stolen PLEASE PLEASE post factual prove of this, this is another thing id LOVE to read

    thanks again for proving yourself wrong

    6) yes it has, says reality and the cases that have already gone that way LMAO
    7.) accept i can use logic, reality and facts to support my posts and you cant
    8.) no matter how many times you repeat the lie it wont become true
    but you are free to believe whatever you want, doesnt effect me of the facts one bit

    9.) you have provided zero prove and EVERYTHING you posted was countered and proved wrong, i did nothing dismissive. LMAO

    1.) And again... "That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL" There was nothing to expose. Doh!

    2.) Of course lies are not valid arguments that is why your argument fails at this point.

    3.). Really? Your comment is as utterly ridiculous as your arguments.
    Your saying exposed when there was nothing to expose. A fallacy.
    You saying it is an equal rights issue when it is not. ~ Fallacy. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
    You saying that it wouldn't be creating a new right when the right doesn't exist in the first place, isn't just a fallacious argument, but and absurdity.
    I could go on, but you are too caught up in your beliefs to see any thing else.

    4.) Your perceptions are twisted and wrong, so again; Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
    Funny you think it is.

    5.) When the name does not traditionally apply, and they are now trying to make it apply, it is stolen.
    Your opinion on it is meaningless as it is stolen.

    6.) Wrong. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
    LOwer court decisions do not hold sway over the entire nation.
    I am not arguing that gay folks have involve themselves in what they call marriage.
    I do not deny that some countries have made it their laws.
    What I am saying its that that does not make it right. As in philosophically. There is not right or wrong.
    It just makes it what it is, not that it is right.
    Or are you unable to understand that?
    Judicial activism can not change that. A law passed can not change that.
    If our S.Ct. were do decide it wasn't an issue of rights, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
    If the S.Ct. decided it was a states Right issue, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
    And spare me the it's then right in the eyes of the law argument. As what ever they decide is right in the eyes of the law.
    Does not make it right though. Which is exactly what your counter will be if it is decided against what you want it to be.
    So spare me. This is where we are at. Either way is not right.

    7.) iLOL As shown, you also do not.

    8.)No, it still would not change the fact that it wasn't an equality, rights, or discrimination issue.
    You just don't seem to understand that arguing it is one does not make it one.
    The Supreme Court deciding it is, doesn't make it so. Just makes it legally one.
    You are trying to argue that courts, or legislatures are not infallible, and that is just an idiotic argument.
    The make things legal and illegal. Not that which is truly right or wrong, as they simply can not do that.

    9.) Simply wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    BUT you did, tell me why you didn't quote ALL of my post, hmmmmmm very telling, seems you left some stuff out, probably because it proved you wrong LOL
    Either waht yuou said wqas already addressed, wasn'r germane or I agreed.
    That is why.
    But since apparently, like a little child, need everything you say addressed, I will do it for you this time.
    Don't expect it in the future.

    These are the other things you said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    soon equal gay rights will be national, just the way it is an d it will be a great day because america will have again fixed and inequality, further protected equal rights and rid ourselves of some more discrimination.
    I do not disagree that it may be.
    As for it being a great day. That is an absurdity because it is a subjective observation. Not one of objectivity.
    I still disagree that it addressed an inequality as there is no inequality to begin with. Nor can you show there to be one because those of the opposite sex with (few exceptions) can engage in the contract of union between opposite sexes called marriage.
    You are unable to dispute that no matter how much you try,
    You want a new right that says those of the same sex can engage in the contract of union and then you also want to call it marriage, when it obviously isn't.
    Which they can already do for the most part legally.
    But instead they want to steal that which traditionally belongs to the union of a man and woman.
    Which makes what they are doing disrespectful. But they do not care.
    Instead of fighting for their own contract of union they want to take that which traditionally belongs to another group.
    And they want that because of the automatic benefits that go along with the contractual union called marriage.
    So instead of fighting for those benefits with a contract of union of their own they do an end run around and try and take that which traditional belongs to another group.
    That is called disrespectful and selfish.


    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    gay marriage already exsists and has before we were ever born so you are wrong trying to push your OPINION that it doesn't,
    Anomalies throughout history does not change the fact that marriage is and was traditionally between a man and a woman.
    Or didn't you know that?
    Nor is it the norm in this country. And as it pretty much depends on the way the S.Ct. will decided things.
    Before any definitive statement that it is a rights issue is true. And even then they may decide it isn't.
    Which also addresses your following question and shows that it is not at this time what you claim.
    It will not be proven unless and until the S.Ct. says otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective-J View Post
    it is about equal gay rights and this has also been proven, if you disagree factually rove otherwise, i cant wait.

    And this issue is obviously so important, that most folks here have voted squirrel. iLOL

  7. #107
    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: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    1.) And again... "That is hilarious. Exposed! iLOL" There was nothing to expose. Doh!

    2.) Of course lies are not valid arguments that is why your argument fails at this point.

    3.). Really? Your comment is as utterly ridiculous as your arguments.
    Your saying exposed when there was nothing to expose. A fallacy.
    You saying it is an equal rights issue when it is not. ~ Fallacy. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
    You saying that it wouldn't be creating a new right when the right doesn't exist in the first place, isn't just a fallacious argument, but and absurdity.
    I could go on, but you are too caught up in your beliefs to see any thing else.

    4.) Your perceptions are twisted and wrong, so again; Yes you have. And no, that is not brilliant.
    Funny you think it is.

    5.) When the name does not traditionally apply, and they are now trying to make it apply, it is stolen.
    Your opinion on it is meaningless as it is stolen.

    6.) Wrong. It is not an equal rights issue until the S. Ct. says otherwise. Until such time it is only an argument. Not a fact.
    LOwer court decisions do not hold sway over the entire nation.
    I am not arguing that gay folks have involve themselves in what they call marriage.
    I do not deny that some countries have made it their laws.
    What I am saying its that that does not make it right. As in philosophically. There is not right or wrong.
    It just makes it what it is, not that it is right.
    Or are you unable to understand that?
    Judicial activism can not change that. A law passed can not change that.
    If our S.Ct. were do decide it wasn't an issue of rights, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
    If the S.Ct. decided it was a states Right issue, that wouldn't make their decision right, only what is.
    And spare me the it's then right in the eyes of the law argument. As what ever they decide is right in the eyes of the law.
    Does not make it right though. Which is exactly what your counter will be if it is decided against what you want it to be.
    So spare me. This is where we are at. Either way is not right.

    7.) iLOL As shown, you also do not.

    8.)No, it still would not change the fact that it wasn't an equality, rights, or discrimination issue.
    You just don't seem to understand that arguing it is one does not make it one.
    The Supreme Court deciding it is, doesn't make it so. Just makes it legally one.
    You are trying to argue that courts, or legislatures are not infallible, and that is just an idiotic argument.
    The make things legal and illegal. Not that which is truly right or wrong, as they simply can not do that.

    9.) Simply wrong!

    Either waht yuou said wqas already addressed, wasn'r germane or I agreed.
    That is why.
    But since apparently, like a little child, need everything you say addressed, I will do it for you this time.
    Don't expect it in the future.

    These are the other things you said.
    I do not disagree that it may be.
    As for it being a great day. That is an absurdity because it is a subjective observation. Not one of objectivity.
    I still disagree that it addressed an inequality as there is no inequality to begin with. Nor can you show there to be one because those of the opposite sex with (few exceptions) can engage in the contract of union between opposite sexes called marriage.
    You are unable to dispute that no matter how much you try,
    You want a new right that says those of the same sex can engage in the contract of union and then you also want to call it marriage, when it obviously isn't.
    Which they can already do for the most part legally.
    But instead they want to steal that which traditionally belongs to the union of a man and woman.
    Which makes what they are doing disrespectful. But they do not care.
    Instead of fighting for their own contract of union they want to take that which traditionally belongs to another group.
    And they want that because of the automatic benefits that go along with the contractual union called marriage.
    So instead of fighting for those benefits with a contract of union of their own they do an end run around and try and take that which traditional belongs to another group.
    That is called disrespectful and selfish.


    Anomalies throughout history does not change the fact that marriage is and was traditionally between a man and a woman.
    Or didn't you know that?
    Nor is it the norm in this country. And as it pretty much depends on the way the S.Ct. will decided things.
    Before any definitive statement that it is a rights issue is true. And even then they may decide it isn't.
    Which also addresses your following question and shows that it is not at this time what you claim.
    It will not be proven unless and until the S.Ct. says otherwise.

    And this issue is obviously so important, that most folks here have voted squirrel. iLOL

    LMAO

    soooooo why did you dodge my questions?

    I asked you for factually prove of your lies and all you offered was "nu-huh" and more opinion

    maybe you simply dont understand the questions

    ok simply admit that you are only posting your opinion and some of it is factually wrong or simply factually prove your lies

    since gay marriage exists and has before we were even born so FACTUALLY prove its being "stolen" LMAO
    next factually prove that its not an equal rights issue

    two simple questions about your lies that i want you to factually support i cant wait to read your next false post full of OPINION and ZERO facts
    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. #108
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nevada
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,838

  9. #109
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,962

    Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Homosexuality (the condition of being attracted to members of the same gender) is not sinful, no. Any more than me being attracted to women other than my wife is inherently sinful. Acting upon those impulses is a different story (and a whole thread in and of itself). I have no problem with homosexuals marrying. I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples. As per this thread, my belief in this regard does not change simply because people I love are themselves homosexual, any more than my opinions on marriage are changed because people I love are attracted to people other than their spouses.
    The way you voted in the poll:

    Against SSM? Would you change your mind?

    Lead me to believe you were against SSM. Some portions of this post:

    I do not think we should alter the definition of marriage to one in which marriage is built merely upon emotion (we love each other!), which is inherent in the altering of the definition to include same-sex couples.
    Seem to contradict that you say you have no problem with homosexuals marrying.

    Would you mind clarifying? Yes or no.

    You are ok with homosexuals marrying?
    Your view didn't change when your sister came out, because you were already ok with homosexuals marrying?
    Your poll answer is incorrect, because you are not Against SSM.

  10. #110
    Sage
    chromium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    A2
    Last Seen
    06-05-17 @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    16,968

    Re: Portman. For those members against gay marriage:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gina View Post
    The way you voted in the poll:

    Against SSM? Would you change your mind?

    Lead me to believe you were against SSM. Some portions of this post:



    Seem to contradict that you say you have no problem with homosexuals marrying.

    Would you mind clarifying? Yes or no.

    You are ok with homosexuals marrying?
    Your view didn't change when your sister came out, because you were already ok with homosexuals marrying?
    Your poll answer is incorrect, because you are not Against SSM.
    Maybe clicked the wrong thing? Well, another reason mob rule should never determine civil rights.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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