• 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!

[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

Angel said:
Show us! Stop posturing and prevaricating in these pestiferous posts of yours.
Click to expand...

Already did go back read the read, read the links YOU posted.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Have you looked up 'prevaricate' yet?

And I'd be happy to direct you to some fine texts in fundamental logic if you'd like.

Always happy to help out with those who struggle with it.
Click to expand...
Pusillanimous. Go for eight,
 
Blackcat13th said:
No it isnt, subjectivity doesnt exist. I find people get hostile when they have to consider something they didnt know. Like their milk machine is going to be upset...
Click to expand...

Yes it is.

Your unfamiliarity with grammar isn't my problem.

Standard Contractions in English

aren't are not
can't cannot
couldn't could not
could've could have
didn't did not
doesn't does not
don't do note'er ever
hadn't had not
hasn't has not
haven't have not
he'd he had; he would
he'll he will; he shall
he's he is; he has
I'd I had; I would
I'll I will; I shall
I'm I am
I've I have
isn't is not
it'd it would
it'll it shall; it will
it's it is; it has
let's let us
ma'am madam
mightn't might not
might've might have
mustn't must not
must've must have
'n' and
needn't need not
ne'er never
o'er over
ol' old
oughtn't ought not
shan't shall not
she'd she had; she would
she'll she will; she shall
she's she is; she has
shouldn't should not
should've should have
that'd that would
that's that is; that has
there'd there had; there would
there'll there shall; there will
there's there has; there is
they'd they had; they would
they'll they will; they shall
they're they are
they've they have
'twas it was
wasn't was not
we'd we had; we would
we'll we will
we're we are
we've we have
weren't were not
what'll what will; what shall
what're what are
what's what is; what has; what does
what've what have
where'd where did
where's where is; where has
who'd who had; who would
who'll who will; who shall
who's who is; who has
who've who have
why'd why did
won't will not
wouldn't would not
would've would have
you'd you had; you would
you'll you will; you shall
you're you are
you've you have


What Are Contractions in English Grammar?


You are or you're welcome. I have or I've placed in bold the bit were you were wrong.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
That's because it's so often a petty red herring. What's funny is how often those doing the correcting have themselves made egregious errors. ;)
Click to expand...

Aaaggh you contracted "it is" to "it's" Blackcat will hate you.


Though you are right and he is wrong.
 
Cougarbear said:
You continue to be mixed up. The Bible is proof that Adam and Eve exist as it would for any auto-biography. You are simply not accepting the facts.
Click to expand...

No autobiography or biography is proof of anything unless the information in it is verified AS fact.

And Adam and Even are not remotely substantiated by fact, so there is no foundation for the rest of an argument based on that.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Sorry that you lack any vocabularly that you actually understand. To put it in your P-terms, that's pathetic.

My offer still stands: totally willing to help you with logic.
Click to expand...
Pretentious. Go for nine.
 
Cougarbear said:
You continue to be mixed up. The Bible is proof that Adam and Eve exist as it would for any auto-biography. You are simply not accepting the facts. As for the 1st amendment, those words "separation of church and state" do not exist in the Constitution Bill of Rights. Therefore, it's only your opinion about Church and State. None of the Bill of Rights gives the Government any rights whatsoever. All the rights belong to the people and in the case of the 1st amendment, churches and other media organizations. As for religion, we the people have the right of free expression of our religious beliefs and the Government cannot establish a religion or church as did England and other counties that established the Catholic Church as the state church with power and authority. Our Constitution prohibits our Churches to either be controlled by a Government or the Government controlled by a Church. However, that doesn't mean the an individuals religious beliefs cannot be involved with a political decision. Anymore than an atheist's belief cannot be involved in a political decision. We vote our conscience and that means our leaders we choose can lead with their conscience as well. Even if their conscience is developed by their religious beliefs.

An example would be those who have no problem killing unborn babies for their own personal convenience can do so because their conscience is void of God. Their ease at killing babies is developed by their denial of God or sin.
Click to expand...

The bible is proof of nothing. It's a compendium of claims.

Super basic, ground-level stuff here.
 
So doesn't anyone have any good, non-religious arguments against same sex marriage ?


And Angel, you contention that all marriage is bad has been rejected.
 
Angel said:
So make your case.
Click to expand...

Already did and you closed your eyes and pretended you didn't see it, but dont worry everyone else did and knows you are a fraud
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes it is.

Your unfamiliarity with grammar isn't my problem.

Standard Contractions in English

aren't are not
can't cannot
couldn't could not
could've could have
didn't did not
doesn't does not
don't do note'er ever
hadn't had not
hasn't has not
haven't have not
he'd he had; he would
he'll he will; he shall
he's he is; he has
I'd I had; I would
I'll I will; I shall
I'm I am
I've I have
isn't is not
it'd it would
it'll it shall; it will
it's it is; it has
let's let us
ma'am madam
mightn't might not
might've might have
mustn't must not
must've must have
'n' and
needn't need not
ne'er never
o'er over
ol' old
oughtn't ought not
shan't shall not
she'd she had; she would
she'll she will; she shall
she's she is; she has
shouldn't should not
should've should have
that'd that would
that's that is; that has
there'd there had; there would
there'll there shall; there will
there's there has; there is
they'd they had; they would
they'll they will; they shall
they're they are
they've they have
'twas it was
wasn't was not
we'd we had; we would
we'll we will
we're we are
we've we have
weren't were not
what'll what will; what shall
what're what are
what's what is; what has; what does
what've what have
where'd where did
where's where is; where has
who'd who had; who would
who'll who will; who shall
who's who is; who has
who've who have
why'd why did
won't will not
wouldn't would not
would've would have
you'd you had; you would
you'll you will; you shall
you're you are
you've you have


What Are Contractions in English Grammar?


You are or you're welcome. I have or I've placed in bold the bit were you were wrong.
Click to expand...

I believe gfm/itn has found his way back to us
 
Rich2018 said:
Clearly not by you.


I was asking if there was anyone else who could offer a good, non-religious, argument against SSM.
Click to expand...

over 3.5k posts the answer is obviously no
 
Quag said:
Already did and you closed your eyes and pretended you didn't see it, but dont worry everyone else did and knows you are a fraud
Click to expand...
No, you made no case. You made an unsupported assertion that my premises are false. You haven't shown that you even recognize one of my premises, for one. Your posts, to date, are just posturing flatulence. Engage the argument in a way that shows you understand it, or else stop this bull**** posturing.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
And there it is. I gladly accept your 2nd surrender.
Click to expand...
Perverse. Great! That's ten descriptors of your postings about an argument you don't even understand. I'll gather them for the indictment. Stay tuned.
 
Quag said:
over 3.5k posts the answer is obviously no
Click to expand...

That's my point - there are none.

Angel offered an argument, that was pried out of him, against all forms of marriage.

Whilst not the question, it was never the less addressed and answered.
 
Rich2018 said:
Clearly not by you.


I was asking if there was anyone else who could offer a good, non-religious, argument against SSM.
Click to expand...
You addressed me by name. Yet another instance of the obliviousness of your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom