• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long [W:29, 210]

Actually, they do. This demonstrates you lying.

But here's what I've decided. You have decided to invent a word, "homarriage". Well, since I have proven that you don't understand how words are defined, and, therefore, you don't understand why the word marriage doesn't mean what you want it to mean, just for you, I am going to invent my own word. Since it seems that certain segments of the heterosexual community... like you... don't understand definitions, it is clear that the word marriage has become such a bone of contention, that I have decided to eliminate it altogether. Because, like you, I can make these kinds of decisions. Therefore, from now on, whenever dealing with you, straight marriage will be called hemarriage, since the word marriage no longer exists. I suggest that all members, when discussing this issue with Ontologuy, use the word hemarriage. It is an accurate definition of what we are discussing... heterosexual marriage. I'm sure that Ontologuy will have no objections since accuracy is so important to him Hemarriage. Remember to pronounce it hem' er idge.
Most of your post here is fallacy combined with illogical reasoning.

However, it is, as I'm sure you'll understand, important to refute your false statement that "You have decided to invent a word, "homarriage".

I did not invent that word, though I sometimes wish I had.

It is merely my chosen preference from a list, so I frequently suggest "homarriage" as the applicable term.

So "homarriage" is not "my theory" or "my invention" or the like.

As proof, I offer the following:

Others talking about the word: "Homarriage" - Hot Topics - What to Expect.com
I told my wife that someone said we should call our marriage a homarriage and now she calls me her ho.

This from way back in 2006: Ho-marriage? - The Globe and Mail
If a new word could be found to describe homosexual civil unions -- such as "homarriage" -- then, that would be acceptable. Just leave the traditional definition of marriage alone.

Other forums: The weakness in B. H. Obama's strategy....: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review
Homarriage is, and should be, a state issue. Most of those "Gay Republicans" would agree.

Other forums: Glenn Beck supports gay marriage.
Gay marriage is a conflict of terms!

Marriage MUST remain a union between a man and a woman otherwise the term is meaningless.

If on the other hand someone wants to coin a new word for sexual deviants to form some kind of a union do it and don’t destroy marriage for normal people. Homarriage is available.

And from 2009: Gay Marriage: Who Cares? - Taki's Magazine
You can have your very own word—I’ve seen terms such as “homarriage,”

Etc.

None of the people in the links suggesting the use of the word "homarriage" are me.

The word has been in common usage as a suggestion for the word to describe SS-couples' relevant relationship for a long time, and I simply didn't start its usage.

Thus I, obviously, did not "invent" the word.

I have simply referenced the word "homarriage" as in my political opinion it is one of the most logical short-terms applicable.

Some prefer the longer "homosexual marriage".

Regardless, my made point here is that you are in likely purposeful error in your rush to false judgment that I "invented" the term "homarriage".

This is typical of your approach, in that you falsely state something is "my theory" or that "I invented it" as an attempt to demean and belittle the political opinion.

Not only is your reasoning illogical, as who invented an accurate presentation is irrelevant as the accurate presentation stands on its own, but your reasoning is based on an obviously false premise.
 
Most of your post here is fallacy combined with illogical reasoning.

However, it is, as I'm sure you'll understand, important to refute your false statement that "You have decided to invent a word, "homarriage".

I did not invent that word, though I sometimes wish I had.

It is merely my chosen preference from a list, so I frequently suggest "homarriage" as the applicable term.

So "homarriage" is not "my theory" or "my invention" or the like.

As proof, I offer the following:

Others talking about the word: "Homarriage" - Hot Topics - What to Expect.com

This from way back in 2006: Ho-marriage? - The Globe and Mail

Other forums: The weakness in B. H. Obama's strategy....: Off Topic Forum: Digital Photography Review

Other forums: Glenn Beck supports gay marriage.

And from 2009: Gay Marriage: Who Cares? - Taki's Magazine

Etc.

None of the people in the links suggesting the use of the word "homarriage" are me.

The word has been in common usage as a suggestion for the word to describe SS-couples' relevant relationship for a long time, and I simply didn't start its usage.

Thus I, obviously, did not "invent" the word.

I have simply referenced the word "homarriage" as in my political opinion it is one of the most logical short-terms applicable.

Some prefer the longer "homosexual marriage".

Regardless, my made point here is that you are in likely purposeful error in your rush to false judgment that I "invented" the term "homarriage".

This is typical of your approach, in that you falsely state something is "my theory" or that "I invented it" as an attempt to demean and belittle the political opinion.

Not only is your reasoning illogical, as who invented an accurate presentation is irrelevant as the accurate presentation stands on its own, but your reasoning is based on an obviously false premise.

:lamo I think simply "I did not invent the word homarriage" would have sufficed.

A bit of advice though, being long-winded doesn't make you more intelligent, it just bores people quicker. You spend paragraphs writing about a simple response. That doesn't make you more intelligent.
 
The time honeored meaning of marriage used to be a man and a woman of the same race and same class. So I guess you are against poor people marrying rich people and interracial marriage too right?
yep that was ONE of the many not
and it leaves out the fact that gay marriage existed in BC

its all factually proven wrong and nonsense that NOBODY educated falls for
 
The time honeored meaning of marriage used to be a man and a woman of the same race and same class.
False, obviously.

Marriage was created just before the agricultural revolution more than 12,000 years ago and has remained at its foundational requirement "a man and a woman as husband and wife".

Any location specific additional idiosyncratic criteria in certain cultures about class, or race, or the like only served to restrict the number of marriages, but every marriage created remained between a man and a woman as husband and wife or the union simply was not a marriage.


So I guess you are against poor people marrying rich people and interracial marriage too right?
Since your premise is false, so is your conclusion .. though you don't likely really care about logical truth but were merely interested in a quick and flaky "if" to justify your "then" castigation. :roll:
 
The time honeored meaning of marriage used to be a man and a woman of the same race and same class. So I guess you are against poor people marrying rich people and interracial marriage too right?

Not that long ago it was also a "time honored" part of "traditional marriage" that a husband could physically beat his wife, and even rape his wife and NOT be charged with a crime because at that time it was not thought that such things were crimes.
 
I think simply "I did not invent the word homarriage" would have sufficed.
Or in other words: "Dang, I would have preferred you just denied inventing the word 'homarriage' as then we could have denied believing you and clamored for proof. Now, because you presented proof, we can't without looking foolish. :shock: "

:roll:


A bit of advice though, being long-winded doesn't make you more intelligent, it just bores people quicker. You spend paragraphs writing about a simple response. That doesn't make you more intelligent.
Or again, in other words: "I would greatly prefer that you not so successfully present and argue your position, as when you do you completely make an irrefutable case that leaves no loopholes for me to pounce on and bury to death with irrational assumptions that I can fool myself or others into believing. :( "

:roll:


:cool:
 
Not that long ago it was also a "time honored" part of "traditional marriage" that a husband could physically beat his wife, and even rape his wife and NOT be charged with a crime because at that time it was not thought that such things were crimes.
Both false and clearly irrelevant, obviously.
 
Not that long ago it was also a "time honored" part of "traditional marriage" that a husband could physically beat his wife, and even rape his wife and NOT be charged with a crime because at that time it was not thought that such things were crimes.

yep, this is true

this is anybody honest and educated knows the the phrase "traditional marriage" is complete BS, its subjective and made up. It varies person to person
 
Both false and clearly irrelevant, obviously.

Nope it is correct, you just choose to only follow YOUR defintion. Marriage has taken other forms and other requirements. The fact you choose to ignore those "time honored" requirements is your problem.

Obviously you have no clue.
 
Nope it is correct, you just choose to only follow YOUR defintion. Marriage has taken other forms and other requirements. The fact you choose to ignore those "time honored" requirements is your problem.

Obviously you have no clue.

also true, to some people facts dont matter only biased dishonest agendas
 
It has already been proven that you do not understand what sodomy is. It has already been proven that homosexuality is not deviant. Therefore, everything you posted above is invalid.

Homosexual sex is dirty, deviant behavior

If it had a purpose, evolution would have found one by now
 
Homosexual sex is dirty, deviant behavior

If it had a purpose, evolution would have found one by now

please list the facts that support your statement. Thats right you have none.
 
Both false and clearly irrelevant, obviously.

No, those were both true. But you're still dodging the key problem with your "opinion." Marriage has changed in nature throughout history and across various cultures. There has never been a single universal concept of marriage, and your whole spiel revolves around the idea that there is.

Just man up and admit the truth: you don't want guy people using a word you think belongs to you. Because you don't like homosexuality. Quit hiding behind pseudo intellectual flourish. Your posting is identical to all the other people who rant about changing definitions. As if your right to a definition is more important than equal protection under the law.
 
please list the facts that support your statement. Thats right you have none.

There are none. He knows it and you know it. It's clearly his opinion. He doesn't see the people. He just sees the sex, as if gay people are defined solely on that one thing.
 
There are none. He knows it and you know it. It's clearly his opinion. He doesn't see the people. He just sees the sex, as if gay people are defined solely on that one thing.

I agree but people who have views that dont care about others rights and views that are based on bigotry and discrimination will always find a way to see another human as a lesser.
 
No, those were both true. But you're still dodging the key problem with your "opinion." Marriage has changed in nature throughout history and across various cultures. There has never been a single universal concept of marriage, and your whole spiel revolves around the idea that there is. Just man up and admit the truth: you don't want guy people using a word you think belongs to you. Because you don't like homosexuality. Quit hiding behind pseudo intellectual flourish. Your posting is identical to all the other people who rant about changing definitions. As if your right to a definition is more important than equal protection under the law.
Your premises are false .. but I realize that in order to continue discussing the matter, you need to assume I'm homophobic, as you're frustrated that I won't buy into the "gay marriage" "same-sex marriage" oxymoronic speak that the left wing has permeated the media with for so many years, subconsciously falsely influencing people to think that "marriage" has meant other than what it has always truly meant: between a man and a woman as husband and wife.

You need to understand that I can't be, in effect, brainwashed in this manner.

It's always been crystal clear obvious that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" and has never meant anything other than that, and that anything other than that was simply not a "marriage" no matter what it was erroneously called.

Despite left-wing PC and other media campaigns, the greater majority of society, though accepting of same-sex committed romantic domestic partnership civil union relationships, wants a different name associated with them than "marriage", and rightly so, as was demonstrated in a Gallup poll posted sometime ago in another thread at this forum.

That's reality, and, it's a respectable one, as it respects both definitive propriety, a respect for the time-honored meaning of words, and society's sensibilities.
 
Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site.

You don't have to be Sigmund Freud to see what's going on in the heads of homophobes.
 
Ontologabout 1062300247 said:
Your accusation is, obviously, false, and falsely alluding to me as a "homophobe" is an unprovoked ad hominem that disrespects this site.

Like you care about respect. Your utterly irrational views that try to equate homosexuality to a birth defect and your insistence on using an offensive term for same sex relationships show you know little about the concept of respect. All you want to do is belittle and demean people because they offend your sensibilities.
 
Like you care about respect. Your utterly irrational views that try to equate homosexuality to a birth defect and your insistence on using an offensive term for same sex relationships show you know little about the concept of respect. All you want to do is belittle and demean people because they offend your sensibilities.

Why is the term "birth defect" offensive to you?

Does the person with Down's Syndrome or Turner's Syndrome or Kleinfelter's Syndrome get offended that their condition is termed a "birth defect?" I don't think so. I imagine that they understand it for what it is and the term describing their reality is simply that... A term. Applying emotion to it only confuses the reality.

This is the same reason that every few years we have to come up with a new word for the "handicapped" err I mean, "disabled" err I mean, "DIFFERENTLY ABLED"

If it is a "birth defect" then it is what it is and it shouldn't trigger angst. If you believe it is not a "birth defect" and hearing the term used to explain homosexuality causes you to feel that homosexuals are being attacked by the use of the term this would only indicate that you believe the term "birth defect" means someone is less valued than another based on a defect which was out of their control. Since there are conditions that are acceptably termed "defects" as those listed above, one could only conclude you feel they are lower in value than yourself.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Well in a country that powers that be think creationism is science what do you expect

Religious conservatives on Texas textbook review panels criticize proposed science books

One reviewer even suggested a rule requiring that each biology book cover “creation science.” That would run counter to a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The decision banned the teaching of creationism in public school science classes.

Religious conservatives on Texas textbook review panels criticize proposed science books | Dallasnews.com - News for Dallas, Texas - The Dallas Morning News
Silliness. I will ask you to prove your theories on where we all originally came from...certainly is not science that has determined such things... we are forcing our kids to learn junk... I could agree with not teaching creationism in school but would also require the non provable garbage they are feeding our kids nowadays also be removed. If it cannot be proven through scientific method, its-----OUT...

I will not hold my breath waiting for you to prove something I know for certain you cannot. So, now your are free to just make some silly comment and go on believing that hot load of hooey that they have fed you...just do not expect us and our kids to be equally as blind.
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

There won't be riots, this isn't France. Those so vehemently against SSM are for the most part some combination of old, obese, lazy. What I've noticed on college campuses and such is it's the homophobes who are too afraid to speak up. Being cowards, they'll go to the polls and anonymously vote against others' basic human rights, but I get the impression that those who would show their face are doing it at the weekly Bingo meeting at the nursing home.

Is this out of experience that you get your impression? As that is the impression I get of how you would know. Bingo...did that get you running up to the front?
 
Re: On gay marriage, America's house may not stay divided for long

Silliness. I will ask you to prove your theories on where we all originally came from...

<snip>

So, now your are free to just make some silly comment and go on believing that hot load of hooey that they have fed you...just do not expect us and our kids to be equally as blind.

Ug..........:roll:
 
You guys keep bringing up procreation as if it's somehow important to deciding whether or not a marriage is ok. Apparently it's not important now?

Ok, so your argument that same-sex couples can't have children with each other is irrelevant. Thanks, but everyone else already knew that.

You asked, I answered. You don't like the answer, so you dismiss, ridicule, and label it. Sadly predictable.
 
Back
Top Bottom