View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

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

    177 55.31%
  • Yes. please explain.

    143 44.69%
Page 57 of 121 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967107 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 1209

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

  1. #561
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    droning?........... move along move along!

  2. #562
    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: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    droning?........... move along move along!
    failed deflection 62, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    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. #563
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Not only am I looking for your opinion im looking for your reasoning if your answer is yes.

    I have discussed gay marriage many many times and have yet to hear ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage. Almost every reason I have ever heard was also used about women’s rights, equal rights, interracial marriage etc. the reason were dumb illogical then and the most certainly still are today, even more so since not only common sense and facts proves them wrong but history.
    Really? Not a single one?


    Reasonable? By what you only will call reasonable?

    Logical? The law is often not logical.

    Non-biased? Every one has a bias even those who are "right" have a bias.

    Non-selfish? What does selfishness have to do whether it is right to have SSM or not?

    Non-arrogant? While arrogance may blind one to reality it does not necessitate it nor if you are "right" doesn't mean you are not arrogant. Hint. Hint.

    Non-hypercritical? While having a contrary point of view would have an appearance of being critical, it doesn't follow that having a contrary point of view being hypercritical nor would having a agreement to SSM would not mean that they would not be hypercritical or just critical.

    Non-anti American? So if someone has a particular view and it opposes something that you believe it then becomes anti-American?


    now mind you, pay attention to my verbiage, I said reason to STOP it.

    That means in America I think its fine for anybody to:
    THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
    TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
    PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
    BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
    FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
    etc
    This is called setting up straw man arguments. I do not expect that the majority of people who are opposed to SSM would necessarily fall under these.

    and i also believe and support in your rights to do so but once you try to stop it I think you wrong on so many levels.
    I can’t imagine how AMERICANS think they have the right to tell two CONSENTING ADULTS who and who they cant marry lmao
    Marriages exist for certain reasons some of which do not involve the couple directly. They would include making an environment be more to care for offspring (which benefits society as a whole) Allowing society to define limits and rights and responsibilities on conduct of persons in a family group. This again benefits society.

    Irregardless how you can put it, having SSM requires the change of the definition of marriage and since marriage is very much a societal institution it would require an agreement thought society to agree to the change. It cannot be imposed by courts or just legislation since you want to override the States that would oppose SSM. This will require an Amendment to the Constitution.



    Does it get anymore pompous, arrogant, selfish, hypercritical and anti american than that. How anybody thinks they have the right to tell a consenting adult they cant marry another consenting adult is beyond me.
    Individually people can have sex with any willing partner that can give consent, they can go to orgies, or engage in any weird activity if it suits their purposes. People can live together if they want. However, marriage is an institution and is not something that one should engage in just because that would be convenient. It has a definition of being between one man and one woman and if you want to expand that between any two people (who are not 1st degree relatives) then it is incumbent for you and those who favor SSM to put up arguments to expand that definition and just saying it is your "Right" to do so or that since that people of diffrent races were banned and now is wrong means that we should just accept it will not pass muster. You need to show that it should be changed an you must understand that you cannot just go thru the courts to do so.


    Also to be clear Im also not saying its wrong for you to VOTE on the subject everybody has that right of course.
    Thank you for your consideration.

    I myself am not gay so I REALLY feel its non of my business but has an american I have to call BS on the other so called americans that do think its there business some how.
    Perhaps you should consider to what extent just about everything has become everyone's business and how and thru what processes it became that way.

    Anyway maybe this time will be different, it’ll actually be VERY interesting if it is different. So does anybody have ONE sound, reasonable, logical, non-bais, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason to "Stop" gay marriage.
    It is a change in the definition on what marriage means. For more than a thousand years it has meant such there needs to be considerable discussion and argument to change it. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment if you want all States being forced to accept it.

    Who thinks they have a sound reason why they should get to tell one American consenting adults they cant marry another consenting American adult.
    Let any couple do as they will; but you are requiring acceptance that is against the understanding of what marriage is by forcing the issue and there is a lot of legal force with the status of being married.


    Also for some reference Ill try to list the general reasons people thought of that have been thoroughly debunked.

    Religion/god/bibleMeaningless and debunked
    As so long as churches are not being forced to do marriages then this is not an issue.


    Slipper slope argument: I should be able to marry my dog, pedophiles marring children etc. – Ludicrous and debunked
    This is an issue to an extent since once the door is open to gay marriage the proponents to the others will try. not succeed but try, to promote and validate their ideals.


    Marriage is between a man and woman – this is a lie/opinion. Meaningless and debunked
    WRONG. From the point of Western culture this is the definition. And if there is anything that can be agree ed upon is the US is Western in its views.

    Morals – your morals are subjective, shouldn’t be forced on others and your morals aren’t effected one bit, you still get to believe in them as you see fit. Meaningless and debunked
    Morals are meaningless with respect to marriage since it is an institution that has strict parameters for what it entails. In this morality has no say. Violations are a matter of law and not morals.

    Gay Parents will “turn” their kids gay – LMAO this is also a uneducated fantasy. It has been proven that that children raised by gay parents are no more likely to be or not be gay. It has also been proven that children raised in a multi-parent home on average do better than a single parent home no matter the sex. Ignorant and debunked
    You can have this one.

    Churches will lose their rights – another silly argument that appeals to emotion and could probably be added under the “slipper slope” argument as well. Churches are already protected and will never lose their rights, they discriminate RIGHT NOW against who they want including STRAIGHT couples and will be able to continue to do so under the first amendment. Ludicrous and debunked
    The problem is that there are people who belive that Churches should have no rights and be merely hollow extensions of the society in general or that of the State. And they too like to use the Courts to bypass the problems that would occur with trying to legislate.

    [/QUOTE]Alright heres the most current update and lets have fun!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OFFICIAL COUNTER
    how many sound, reasonable, logical, non-bias, non-selfish, non-arrogant, non-hypercritical, non anti-american reason are there to "Stop" gay marriage

    GOOD REASONS: 0[/QUOTE]
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  4. #564
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    failed deflection 62, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    he presents things he says are facts, many other people in our nation, state they have facts which are counter to his.

    so I didn't state he is right or wrong, I stated just because he states something is fact ,does not make it so.

  5. #565
    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: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    he presents things he says are facts, many other people in our nation, state they have facts which are counter to his.

    so I didn't state he is right or wrong, I stated just because he states something is fact ,does not make it so.
    failed deflection 63, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    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. #566
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    failed deflection 63, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?



    he presents things he says are facts, many other people in our nation, state they have facts which are counter to his.

  7. #567
    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: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow Serious View Post
    1.)Really? Not a single one?
    2.)Reasonable? By what you only will call reasonable?
    3.) Logical? The law is often not logical.
    4.)Non-biased? Every one has a bias even those who are "right" have a bias.
    5.)Non-selfish? What does selfishness have to do whether it is right to have SSM or not?
    6.) Non-arrogant? While arrogance may blind one to reality it does not necessitate it nor if you are "right" doesn't mean you are not arrogant. Hint. Hint.
    7.) Non-hypercritical? While having a contrary point of view would have an appearance of being critical, it doesn't follow that having a contrary point of view being hypercritical nor would having a agreement to SSM would not mean that they would not be hypercritical or just critical.
    8.) Non-anti American? So if someone has a particular view and it opposes something that you believe it then becomes anti-American?
    9.)This is called setting up straw man arguments. I do not expect that the majority of people who are opposed to SSM would necessarily fall under these.
    10.)Marriages exist for certain reasons some of which do not involve the couple directly. They would include making an environment be more to care for offspring (which benefits society as a whole) Allowing society to define limits and rights and responsibilities on conduct of persons in a family group. This again benefits society.
    11.)Irregardless how you can put it, having SSM requires the change of the definition of marriage and since marriage is very much a societal institution it would require an agreement thought society to agree to the change. It cannot be imposed by courts or just legislation since you want to override the States that would oppose SSM. This will require an Amendment to the Constitution.
    12.) Individually people can have sex with any willing partner that can give consent, they can go to orgies, or engage in any weird activity if it suits their purposes. People can live together if they want. However, marriage is an institution and is not something that one should engage in just because that would be convenient. It has a definition of being between one man and one woman and if you want to expand that between any two people (who are not 1st degree relatives) then it is incumbent for you and those who favor SSM to put up arguments to expand that definition and just saying it is your "Right" to do so or that since that people of diffrent races were banned and now is wrong means that we should just accept it will not pass muster. You need to show that it should be changed an you must understand that you cannot just go thru the courts to do so.
    13.)Thank you for your consideration.
    14.)Perhaps you should consider to what extent just about everything has become everyone's business and how and thru what processes it became that way.
    15.) It is a change in the definition on what marriage means. For more than a thousand years it has meant such there needs to be considerable discussion and argument to change it. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment if you want all States being forced to accept it.
    16.) Let any couple do as they will; but you are requiring acceptance that is against the understanding of what marriage is by forcing the issue and there is a lot of legal force with the status of being married.
    17.)As so long as churches are not being forced to do marriages then this is not an issue.
    18.)This is an issue to an extent since once the door is open to gay marriage the proponents to the others will try. not succeed but try, to promote and validate their ideals.
    19.)WRONG. From the point of Western culture this is the definition. And if there is anything that can be agree ed upon is the US is Western in its views.
    20.) Morals are meaningless with respect to marriage since it is an institution that has strict parameters for what it entails. In this morality has no say. Violations are a matter of law and not morals.
    21.)You can have this one.
    22.)The problem is that there are people who belive that Churches should have no rights and be merely hollow extensions of the society in general or that of the State. And they too like to use the Courts to bypass the problems that would occur with trying to legislate.
    23.)Alright heres the most current update and lets have fun!
    1.) yes really not one
    2.) not infringing on somebody equal rights, not discriminating against them simply because its icky, not forcing your morality opn others etc.
    3.) this is true sometimes it nots
    4.) false
    5.) see #2
    6.) see #2
    7.) see #2
    8.) of course not
    9.) no its not at all, please look up the definition of a strawman and it not even close. strawman is stetting up and weak or false argument that wasnt made and arguing agaisnt that and claiming victory.

    What i did is make sure people were very clear what i was talking about.

    also you must be a rookie to this discussion because LOTS of people will QUICKLY jump on this list and say freedom of speech and i have the right to say and teach my child what i want and my church can say its a sin if its wants yadda yadda yadda

    THOSE are actually the real strawman and my list stops trolls and dishonest people from using them. Glad i could clear that up for you

    10.) we are sticking to facts and the facts is marriage is a legal contract. period. but to address your concern i could give you a very long list of doctors, physiologists etc that endorse gay adoption and gay families raising children.

    11.) factual false since its already happening and it will continue to happen and gay marriage was around BC. this is about rights and equality. Society is not needed on this issues just like it wasn't needed for equal rights for minorities and women and just like it wasnt needed for interracial marriage. 80% of the country was against interracial marriage when loving vs Virginia was ruled on. It IS being imposed and will not need an amendment.

    12.) weird good thing that not what i said (convenience) and its definition is not one man one woman as already proven. that was some of the legal restrictions but not its definition. ALso we already have shown it needs changed and the courts are already doing it.

    13.) you welcome, just stopping people from using more failed strawman arguments
    14.) for marriage this is already done, fact is my marriage is none of you business, law made it that way so do other personal reason that are subjective
    15.) again please stick to the facts, it will not need an amendment just like interracial marriage didnt
    16.) this is a lie, acceptance has nothing to do with it. Ita about rights and equality and ending discrimination. DOes everybody accept that different races, genders, religion and marriages right now? nope, nor are they required too. Please dont use this failed straw-man again its been tried.
    17.) they are not and cant be. also why this obvious straw-man is a complete failure i already pointed out. if possible this would already be at risk without gay marriage.
    18.) they were trying before this and im sure they will try after but thats not what a slippery slope argument is. If thats all it took for a slippery slope argument then the constitution itself is one big slippery slope. BUT thats not the case. SO NO, its not an issue because take gay marriage away and your example still exists.
    19.) nope its a fact already proven, trying to change the argument and reframe it to suit your needs is a failure. Are we to keep everything that was in western culture? like i said meaningless when talking about the law, equality and rights.
    20.) correct. morals and religion is meaningless to legal marriage
    21.) lol thanks but i have them all so far
    22.) this isnt a problem has i have never seen one of those people nor does it have to do with this topic at all.
    23.) thanks and i did but it seems you are way behind, NOT an insult, a jab at you or your fault. This thread is actually very old and people revived it and many of the things you brought up have already been put to rest, but i never mind talking about 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

  8. #568
    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: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    he presents things he says are facts, many other people in our nation, state they have facts which are counter to his.
    and its that exact thinking that makes your post a failure

    failed deflection 63, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    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

  9. #569
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    and its that exact thinking that makes your post a failure

    failed deflection 63, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    I don't know if he did or not, are there people in our world who would have a different point of view then CC and say they have the facts....yes there are.

    just because CC says he has the facts does not make them facts for everyone, maybe you think they are, but that's you.

    just because some says they have the facts, that does not empower them to override other people who say they have the facts. your side of your claimed facts, does not give you authority

  10. #570
    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: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it? (PART II)

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    I don't know if he did or not, are there people in our world who would have a different point of view then CC and say they have the facts....yes there are.

    just because CC says he has the facts does not make them facts for everyone, maybe you think they are, but that's you.

    just because some says they have the facts, that does not empower them to override other people who say they have the facts. your side of your claimed facts, does not give you authority
    and its that exact thinking that makes your post a failure

    failed deflection 64, simply stay on topic, stop deflecting and answer the question?

    did CC present facts. Yes or no?
    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
  •