View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 18 of 192 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868118 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #171
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Generally speaking, I am somewhat opposed to gay marriage.

    The problem I have with the OP is the presumption that being for gay marriage is the default, as if it is some inborn right that is being denied. I have yet to be persuaded of this.

    I've given my reasons before. Historically, marriage has been almost universally a male-female union, with the implication that children will likely be born and raised in the family. This has held true throughout almost all cultures and almost all periods of history, with a very few rare exceptions. Even societies where homosexuality was widespread and widely accepted (ancient Greek city-states, certain limited periods in ancient Rome), marriage was still almost exclusively reserved for male-female unions with the implication that childrearing was a primary purpose.

    The default state of marriage is male-female. Allowing same-sex marriage (SSM hereafter) would be a redefining of the institution. The burden of proof that SSM is necessary and positive is therefore on the supporters of SSM, not the defenders of traditional marriage. I have yet to be convinced that such a redefinition is a societal positive, necessary, or without unintended consequences.

    Marriage has historically been as much about family (ie children) as about simply coupledom. SSM does not, in and of itself, produce children without the intervention of a 3rd party who is not part of the union... making "gay marriage" questionable in another sense. (Yes, I know not all straights have children, but in the normal course of events most straight marriages do, and no SSM marriage results in conception without outside aid.) There is a legitimate societal intrest in the production and upbringing of children.

    I have been told that there are studies showing that children raised by gay couples do as well as children raised by straight couples; I have to question whether these studies could be agenda-driven, and have yet to be persuaded that they are not. I have been told that children of gay couples are no more likely to grow up to be gay than children of straight couples, but I have yet to see links to these studies. I remain somewhat dubious that a child does as well raised by SSM parents as by a traditional family with both male and female role-models. I have been presented no data on what percentage of gay couples who wish to marry have any intrest in adopting or raising children.

    What percentage of the population wishes to be married as SSMs? Certainly not all GLBTs do. Is it one percent? Two percent? Should society force a redefinition of marriage on 90-97% of the population for the sake of the desires of 1 or 2 percent? Not without some very compelling reasons.

    Another concern I have falls under Unintended Consequences, or unexpected consequences, or 'where does it go from here'? Before someone brings up the slippery slope fallacy, check my sig: that fallacy does not apply when someone is pushing an agenda, and using one success as a staging point for their next item.

    It would be hard to justify maintaining a ban on polygamous/polyanderous/polyamorous/group marriages for long, once SSM is widely legitimized. What further effects might these changes have on the institution of marriage and family in our society? I have seen no studies.

    Many gays are content to live their lives and let others do likewise; however there is a certain small but vocal percentage of gays who could be classified as "militant activists". This group is not, and never will be, satisfied with tolerance, but instead wishes to push "forced acceptance". If SSM becomes the law of the land, how long before someone sues the Catholic Church in an attempt to force them to perform gay marriage ceremonies and accept gay couples as "married in the church"?

    This militant group concerns me. What is next on their agenda? I have actually had people tell me that I am committing child abuse if I teach my child that homosexuality is wrong. Will the next item on the agenda be an attempt to make teaching/preaching against homosexuality a crime? It has happened in other countries... I've heard there are laws on the books in Canada that could cause a minister to be jailed for preaching against homosexuality, even if there is no advocacy of violence involved (as there usually isn't).

    An activist movement is based on movement. When one goal is achieved, another must be found to maintain the momentum and cohesion of the activist organization. The leadership must always agitate that there is yet one more wrong that must be righted, one more bastion of resistance that must be overrun. Witness the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who seem not to realize that we have probably come as close to achieving MLK's "dream" as we're likely to come, and continue to act as if it is still 1960.

    I remain concerned that accepting SSM and making it the law of the land may not be in society's best interests as I see it.
    nice piece of reading here, Thanks you

    I still see nothing sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage

    my favorite two parts are admitting that gay marriage has been around for over 1000 years and in rome but still proclaiming how rare it is. Only rare compared to the majority. and that you think that allowing gay marriage would be "forcing" a definition change LMAO it would "force" anything.

    Again you are clearly welcome to you opinion and i appreciate your post, its a good on IMO atleast writing wise but has a bunch of fallacy and fantasy in it. it also hasnt convinced me one bit that denying them marriage is also denying them equal rights. I also never buy into the fantasy that marriage is about children because tons of people married never have them nor is it required. That is a totally out dated assumption that has no barring in the real world today.

    as for the slope there is none except on the consenting adults part. I wouldnt care if people want to have polygamy either, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS what others do in marriage and relationships as long as its consensual.

    also you cant NOT sue a church in this country based on religious beliefs so that is MEANINGLESS against gay marriage because the fact of the matter is STRAIGHT couples are already turned away by churches so the "potential" to sue already is there but not allowed by law. Allowing gay marriage wouldnt change this one bit.

    lastly if we hold true to AMERICA there will never be laws that are against teaching gay is wrong that would change EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc Thats just asinine.

    is it illegal to teach women arent equal? minorities arent equal? interracial marriages are wrong now? of course not because this is america, not canada not some other country and that fantasy you are worried about isnt going to happen over gay marriage LMAO

    Many of peoples arguments were the same shallow, fearful, selfish and silly ones that people came up for for women and equal rights and interracial marriage. They held no barring then and they certainly hold none now.
    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. #172
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I was not speaking of "stopping" it, but of "non-acceptance" of it.

    The two are not the same.

    And you seem to be under the false impression that this hypothetical religion I presented is one I hold as my own.

    I was speaking of "non-acceptance" as just that - not accepting something.

    Not actively seeking to prevent it.

    My opinions/views on this issue of gay marriage, if they were not already clear, are as follows:

    • Religious marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), is a religious matter, and thus should be hashed out between the religions, with no government/secular involvement.
      Indeed, if my understanding is correct, government/secular involvement to support/control/stop such would be unconstitutional.
    • Legal marriage between two persons, no matter their sex(s), should be renamed to "civil union" or some such, perhaps of more than one type, hopefully preventing those who take issue with gay marriages from taking issue.
      After all, if it's a solely secular issue, using religious views to dictate to it would ALSO be unconstitutional.
    • The two should not be connected in anyway, and should be separated if currently connected.
    • A religious marriage should involve whatever religious ceremony appropriate.
    • A legal marriage should only involve the signing of a piece of paper, with appropriate officials and lawyers as necessary.


    Edit: Actually, that might not be all that clear....Ah well, we'll see what develops.

    And as a side note, you are obviously not a Centrist...
    I know they are different but my question was if you stop it, so i was simply trying to respond to your post saying "WHAT if, What if" and the answer is it wouldnt matter LOL

    also i didnt assume anything just answering again to your post. My own religion is against it I just dont care because I understand based on AMERICA its wrong to stop it and not my buisness

    thanks for telling me your stance though its insightful

    the only problem is marriage is NOT religious unless you want it to be and thats how it is RIGHT NOW. You can get married by religion and the state accepts it or by someone with a license and the stat accepts it so gay marriage wouldnt change that. So renaming them would be discrimination IMO, no need to rename anything. Its discrimination because religion is a secondary thing to marriage not primary. Religion is NOT needed to marry so no need to rename it NOW because of gay marriage. I bow thats not exactly what you said im just making a point, You are for any marriage not with religion being called something else but that didnt happen before why should it happen now.

    I cant see any reason why they should be separate, gay or not. Marriage is a marriage period. then you choose yourself to involve religion, family, lifestyle etc no need for separate names for them all when they all share and should share identical rights.

    Lastly, explain to me why "YOU" get to decide if "Im" a centrist or not? LMAO I am a centrist/independent because it is supposed to be a party undefined, in the middle, allowed to lean either way depending on the issues. The majority or Reps and Dems, especially Reps dont want you in their group unless you side with them on just about everything. And then if you dont maybe you arent looked at as on the other side but they want to add adjectives on to your title. A type Republican, C type Democrat etc
    No thanks Ill stay right here in the middle where the most common sense is.
    You even want to kick me out of the middle group based on one issue where my stance is both sides get a win win, doesnt get more middle than that
    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. #173
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    I know they are different but my question was if you stop it, so I was simply trying to respond to your post saying "WHAT if, What if" and the answer is it wouldn’t matter LOL
    Thing is, the "what if" was pointless, as I never supported "stopping" anything. I'm a bit of a libertarian in my views in some ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    also I didn’t assume anything just answering again to your post. My own religion is against it I just don’t care because I understand based on AMERICA its wrong to stop it and not my business
    Perhaps not, but your post sure gave me the impression you were.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    thanks for telling me your stance though its insightful

    the only problem is marriage is NOT religious unless you want it to be and that’s how it is RIGHT NOW. You can get married by religion and the state accepts it or by someone with a license and the stat accepts it so gay marriage wouldn’t change that. So renaming them would be discrimination IMO, no need to rename anything. Its discrimination because religion is a secondary thing to marriage not primary. Religion is NOT needed to marry so no need to rename it NOW because of gay marriage. I bow that’s not exactly what you said I’m just making a point, You are for any marriage not with religion being called something else but that didn’t happen before why should it happen now.
    How would renaming all legal marriages to "civil unions" or some such be discrimination? Everyone would have to have one if they wanted the tax breaks, no matter the sex of the partners.

    As for the reason I think this necessary, it is because of the people who hold "marriage" as a sacred part of their religion.

    If you legislate that "marriage" will be between any two persons, regardless of sex, as opposed to it's current state of only male-female (in most states), it seems you would effectively be legislating a religious matter.

    Now, IMO it's just a word, but for some persons that's a big deal.

    If you take all religious overtones out by renaming all legal unions, it would seem probable that at least a portion of the resistance would be removed.

    Then if a religion wants’ to allow gays to “marry”, they can, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. As is currently the case, I think. But the very word “marriage” is sacred to some, apparently.

    I'm saying separate the religious aspect of a marriage/union (and there obviously is one) from the secular aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    I cant see any reason why they should be separate, gay or not. Marriage is a marriage period. then you choose yourself to involve religion, family, lifestyle etc no need for separate names for them all when they all share and should share identical rights.
    It is precisely because of the need to preserve rights that I suggest this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    Lastly, explain to me why "YOU" get to decide if "I’m" a centrist or not? LMAO I am a centrist/independent because it is supposed to be a party undefined, in the middle, allowed to lean either way depending on the issues. The majority or Reps and Dems, especially Reps don’t want you in their group unless you side with them on just about everything. And then if you don’t maybe you aren’t looked at as on the other side but they want to add adjectives on to your title. A type Republican, C type Democrat etc
    No thanks Ill stay right here in the middle where the most common sense is.
    You even want to kick me out of the middle group based on one issue where my stance is both sides get a win, doesn’t get more middle than that
    I don't.

    But I had always thought of a centrist as someone who was wholly in the center, with no leanings either way.

    Personally, I have leanings to both sides of the center, and I always thought of that as being both left and right, which one depending on the issue.

    For that matter, I don't identify with any current party, but classify my views according to "liberal" or "conservative" sides, corresponding with "left" and "right" accordingly.

    But meh.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #174
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    1.)As for the reason I think this necessary, it is because of the people who hold "marriage" as a sacred part of their religion.

    2.)If you legislate that "marriage" will be between any two persons, regardless of sex, as opposed to it's current state of only male-female (in most states), it seems you would effectively be legislating a religious matter.

    Now, IMO it's just a word, but for some persons that's a big deal.

    3.) If you take all religious overtones out by renaming all legal unions, it would seem probable that at least a portion of the resistance would be removed.

    4.) Then if a religion wants’ to allow gays to “marry”, they can, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. As is currently the case, I think. But the very word “marriage” is sacred to some, apparently.

    5.)I'm saying separate the religious aspect of a marriage/union (and there obviously is one) from the secular aspect.

    6.)It is precisely because of the need to preserve rights that I suggest this.

    I don't.

    But I had always thought of a centrist as someone who was wholly in the center, with no leanings either way.

    Personally, I have leanings to both sides of the center, and I always thought of that as being both left and right, which one depending on the issue.

    For that matter, I don't identify with any current party, but classify my views according to "liberal" or "conservative" sides, corresponding with "left" and "right" accordingly.

    But meh.[/QUOTE]

    1.) and that wouldnt change it, they can still hold it sacred no matter what others do. so no need to change the name. Theres 100 of things religion holds sacred that others dont but they dont change do they? only to the person who doesnt share those beliefs. Thats why I feel its a BS issue with the word sacred. ONly in the GAY case is it sacred all others no big deal.

    2.) no you would NOT be legislating a legal matter unless you are claiming we already are? you can get married WITHOUT religion and Religion can also deny you marriage RIGHT NOW. NThat wouldnt change either

    3.) while I agree "resistance" might be removed some, there shouldnt be resistance in the first place, and where resistance would get moved others would want to know why they are being discriminated against and they have to use a different name when it is the same thing.

    4.) again nothing would change clinging to the word marriage is just an excuse IMO because of the countless OTHER things people dont cling to religiously. Allowing gay marriage changes nothing accept gives equal rights to those currently being denied them

    5.) I know what you are saying but theres no need because there isnt a separate one right now?

    6.) rights are NOT being preserved right now, they are being denied, allowing gay marriage would preserve them not the other way around.

    7.) oh? i never heard of that definition of a centrist, at least not in the group I belong to that made me decide to be one. They arent people with NO opinions they are people that understand that theres two sides to everything the world is grey and what is best for them might not be best for others. They want most if not all people to have happiness, and equal rights. They understand that ONE decision may need special rules to work right and cant not always be a blanket fix. but again thanks for explaining I get it now

    Like you I am also a leaner but with center roots. It funny because it get reinforced all the time in debates because people say im a lefty when talking about Gay rights, healthcare abortion but Im a righty when talking about Guns, military etc

    good talks BTW
    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

  5. #175
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-09-10 @ 09:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    25

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Can I ask, of the people who are against gay marriage, is this because of the religious connotations of the word "marriage"? Or do you believe any form of union between people of the same sex is just wrong -quite aside from any religious leanings you may or may not have?

    I'm just wondering how much of this is a religious thing and how much of it isn't...

    Thanks

    S

  6. #176
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Centrist77 View Post
    nice piece of reading here, Thanks you
    Thank you. It is a pity I cannot say the same about your reply.

    I still see nothing sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage
    Ah, my post was "nice reading", but my concerns are unsound, unreasonable, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-american.


    my favorite two parts are admitting that gay marriage has been around for over 1000 years and in rome but still proclaiming how rare it is. Only rare compared to the majority. and that you think that allowing gay marriage would be "forcing" a definition change LMAO it would "force" anything.
    Any honest reading of history demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cultures, in the overwhelming majority of time periods, did not officially permit or sanction gay marriage, including most of ancient Greece and most of the span of the Roman Empire. Historically it has indeed been extremely rare. I didn't say "utterly nonexistent", I said "extremely rare". I said that the historical norm has overwhelmingly been male-female marriage. Prove otherwise with appropriate sources before denigrating my statement.

    As I noted, the burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine the existing institution.


    Again you are clearly welcome to you opinion and i appreciate your post, its a good on IMO atleast writing wise but has a bunch of fallacy and fantasy in it. it also hasnt convinced me one bit that denying them marriage is also denying them equal rights. I also never buy into the fantasy that marriage is about children because tons of people married never have them nor is it required. That is a totally out dated assumption that has no barring in the real world today.
    It is not my purpose to convince you of anything. It is your purpose to convince me, if you wish my support for your cause. So far, all you've done is denigrate my concerns as fantasy, fallacy, biased, selfish, arrogant, etc etc. Way to win friends and influence people, old chap.

    as for the slope there is none except on the consenting adults part. I wouldnt care if people want to have polygamy either, its NONE OF MY BUSINESS what others do in marriage and relationships as long as its consensual.

    also you cant NOT sue a church in this country based on religious beliefs so that is MEANINGLESS against gay marriage because the fact of the matter is STRAIGHT couples are already turned away by churches so the "potential" to sue already is there but not allowed by law. Allowing gay marriage wouldnt change this one bit.
    So you think that the militant faction would stop with gay marriage and say "okay, we're good now, that's all." Oddly enough I haven't seen militant movements ever proclaiming that they've arrived at their goal and may now disband. Not to mention people sue over all manner of things... the Boyscout lawsuit comes to mind, an attempt to force a religious organization to accept something their convictions did not allow.

    You make many assertions, but all I see are opinions and not evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you.


    lastly if we hold true to AMERICA there will never be laws that are against teaching gay is wrong that would change EVERYTHING. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc Thats just asinine.
    I'm in my mid-forties. I have already seen astonishing changes in America in a mere four decades. Many things that were inconcievable four decades ago are now common. I am not reassured by your hyperbolic but unproven assertions.


    is it illegal to teach women arent equal? minorities arent equal? interracial marriages are wrong now? of course not because this is america, not canada not some other country and that fantasy you are worried about isnt going to happen over gay marriage LMAO
    Ah, yes, laughing at me is certainly an effective tool in convincing me that your side of the argument is valid, admirable, necessary, positive and that I should cease to oppose it at once. (/irony)

    Your grasp of the art of persuasion leaves something to be desired. Did you wish to persuade people to support SSM, or simply to denigrate anyone who disagrees?

    You exhibit many hyperpartisan characteristics for someone who claims the name of "centrist".

    Many of peoples arguments were the same shallow, fearful, selfish and silly ones that people came up for for women and equal rights and interracial marriage. They held no barring then and they certainly hold none now.
    Ah, so now I am shallow, fearful and selfish, and equated with racists and sexists.

    Yes, your powers of persuasion are formidable. I have been utterly persuaded... that you completely lack the capacity to debate an issue honestly and openly without resorting to hackery, ad-hominem, hyperbole and insults.

    Congratulations, you utterly failed to convince me to adopt a pro-SSM position. Well done.

    I'm sure that your dignity, eloquence, well-sourced data, well-reasoned logic, and personal warmth was also impressive to any bystanders who might have been following the argument and considering which side to favor. Good show.


    G.
    Last edited by Goshin; 05-02-10 at 09:46 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #177
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by sh856531 View Post
    Can I ask, of the people who are against gay marriage, is this because of the religious connotations of the word "marriage"? Or do you believe any form of union between people of the same sex is just wrong -quite aside from any religious leanings you may or may not have?

    I'm just wondering how much of this is a religious thing and how much of it isn't...

    Thanks

    S
    No it's not the religious connotations for me. As a Christian it is perceived as a sin. It would be like me supporting theft or lying as being proper.

    As for the word marriage being associated with gay. I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate. As I have said two men or women do not make a marriage. It is a man and a woman.

    I don't care if someone is gay or even wants to form a union with that person in a gay relationship. Even if I see it as wrong I will not persecute you for it, but I will not condone or support it.
    Last edited by Black Dog; 05-02-10 at 10:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  8. #178
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,158

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    This is in the UK, not America... but there was surely a time, not so long ago, when most Brits would have said this was inconceivable in their nation.


    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...ality-sin.html

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #179
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Thank you. It is a pity I cannot say the same about your reply.



    1.)Ah, my post was "nice reading", but my concerns are unsound, unreasonable, biased, selfish, arrogant, hypocritical, and anti-american.




    2.)Any honest reading of history demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of cultures, in the overwhelming majority of time periods, did not officially permit or sanction gay marriage, including most of ancient Greece and most of the span of the Roman Empire. Historically it has indeed been extremely rare. I didn't say "utterly nonexistent", I said "extremely rare". I said that the historical norm has overwhelmingly been male-female marriage. Prove otherwise with appropriate sources before denigrating my statement.

    3.) As I noted, the burden of proof is on those who wish to redefine the existing institution.




    4.) It is not my purpose to convince you of anything. It is your purpose to convince me, if you wish my support for your cause. So far, all you've done is denigrate my concerns as fantasy, fallacy, biased, selfish, arrogant, etc etc. Way to win friends and influence people, old chap.



    5.)So you think that the militant faction would stop with gay marriage and say "okay, we're good now, that's all." Oddly enough I haven't seen militant movements ever proclaiming that they've arrived at their goal and may now disband. Not to mention people sue over all manner of things... the Boyscout lawsuit comes to mind, an attempt to force a religious organization to accept something their convictions did not allow.

    6.)You make many assertions, but all I see are opinions and not evidence. Again, the burden of proof is on you.




    7.) I'm in my mid-forties. I have already seen astonishing changes in America in a mere four decades. Many things that were inconcievable four decades ago are now common. I am not reassured by your hyperbolic but unproven assertions.




    8 Ah, yes, laughing at me is certainly an effective tool in convincing me that your side of the argument is valid, admirable, necessary, positive and that I should cease to oppose it at once. (/irony)

    9.)Your grasp of the art of persuasion leaves something to be desired. Did you wish to persuade people to support SSM, or simply to denigrate anyone who disagrees?

    10.) you exhibit many hyperpartisan characteristics for someone who claims the name of "centrist".



    11.)Ah, so now I am shallow, fearful and selfish, and equated with racists and sexists.

    Yes, your powers of persuasion are formidable. I have been utterly persuaded... that you completely lack the capacity to debate an issue honestly and openly without resorting to hackery, ad-hominem, hyperbole and insults.

    Congratulations, you utterly failed to convince me to adopt a pro-SSM position. Well done.

    G.
    1.) you should read SLOWER next time without the over emotion. I didnt say your CONCERNS were all that stuff in relation to what you believe, they are fine that way you are allowed to be concerned with what ever you want sir BUT when it comes to STOPPING it yes they are all the aforementioned. See OP for further understanding

    2&3.) I have no burden of anything, it in fact existed for over 1000 years so IM not redefining anything LMAO it DID existed so the definition of MAN WOMEN is fallacy Or elective in believing pick one. lol

    4.) its my job to convince you? why its my poll and question LOL and you have in facted stated some fantasy and fallies no changing that deny if you wish but facts remain the same. Also you are still not understanding which parts im am calling selfish etc your generalizing and doing it wrong

    5.) "militant faction" LMAO wat a joke are you imlying that ONLY militants want gay marriage hahahaha because if not this is another meaningless fantasy of your doom and gloom type of worry and future. Guess we should never change anything because the "militant faction" will never stop. Lets do nothing then forever. lol

    6.) really? pot meet kettle then, I have no burden of proof. Gay marriage existed for over 1000 years, fact. Gays not being allowed to marry is denying them equal rights, fact.

    7.) what unproven assertions? like what? that we will NOT lose our freedom of religion and speech because of gay rights like in your fantasy world? Rest assured if we lose those two things it will have NOTHING to do ith gay marrige LMAO yes I call that a fallacy because nothing will change to effect those things, if we are going to lose them it will happen with or without gay marriage because it does nothing to add to the case of removing them LOL

    8 & 9.) dont say something so silly and i wont laugh, i simply used your poor example against you to show you theres no logic behind it. Again have no desire to persuade you at all in any believes etc. this is my thread and poll so its your job to convince me why you think personally you have the right to STOP it. Not asking about voting not asking about believing thinking it wrong. Convince me that you have the right to tell two other consenting adults who they can and cant marry seems you misunderstanding the whole point or you are trying to spin it since you cant defend it. You claimed something might happened that is down right silly because it has ZERO basis and I gave you examples but yet some how you tell me when i use examples have no basis? interesting?

    10.) really? how do you figure that? my way EVERYBODY gets to marry and do what THEY want and its EQUAL and NO ONE one is discriminated against. The other way only SOME groups of people get to do what they want and the others ARE discriminated against. Seems perfectly centrist to me. Explain to me how my way is HYPER-partiasn but the other way is bipartisan LMAO

    11.) again you should open mouth insert foot cause you are using emotion not logic. My last statement was in general, notice my EXACT statement was "MANY of peoples arguments" Aka MEANING (not all) LOL and certainly never said YOU.

    nobody said YOU are racist sexist etc LMAO Mr dramatic. I certainly didnt by any stretch of the imagination

    and again lastly i wasnt trying to convince you of anything but for some reason reality seems to escape you LOL

    congratulations to you and your over barring emotions, your spin machine and misunderstanding or just about everything

    thanks for admitting i was open and honest maybe next time you will do the same thanks for playing
    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

  10. #180
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,795

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackdog View Post
    No it's not the religious connotations for me. As a Christian it is perceived as a sin. It would be like me supporting theft or lying as being proper.

    As for the word marriage being associated with gay. I see it as nothing but wanting to legitimize something I see as illegitimate. As I have said two men or women do not make a marriage. It is a man and a woman.

    I don't care if someone is gay or even wants to form a union with that person in a gay relationship. Even if I see it as wrong I will not persecute you for it, but I will not condone or support it.
    SO just to be clear are you saying if there was a vote you would just not vote on the subject? and its because while you believe in your beliefs you understand that in america your beliefs arent right for all and shouldnt be opposed on anyone.

    im i "guessing" right or full of it 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

Posting Permissions

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