jallman said:Words take on new inclusions all the time...like cool to describe a hip person or hot to describe an attractive person...so whats your point about definition.
Those aren't actually "inclusions", they're new/alternate definitions added to an existing word....Not to mention that your specific examples are slang...The dictionary lists slang words as such, as to say "not an actual definition, not to be used in this context for formal writing, etc." "Last time I checked, "Marriage" was not a slang word, had no slang definitions, nor was it a word to be tossed around lightly.
I'm aware that some animals tend to have homosexual relationships, however, humans are not animals. Granted, we fit into Kingdom Animalia in the biology textbook, but what seperates us from the animals are a (the first 3 factua, the last my personal belief) conscience, free will (we're not driven soley by instinct.), opposable thumbs, and above & beyond any of those things, an immortal soul.
jallman said:Then you go home and tell your wife tonight..."Honey, I think about what gay men do so much that if I knew they were getting married our relationship wouldnt be as special anymore. When gay men start getting married, I'm going to feel weird about us."
Not "weird" about us, but weird about the situation. It has nothing to do with our individual relationship, it's marriage on the whole that I'd feel weird about. To me, it's just as ridiculous as someone wanting to marry their dog, goldfish, or table lamp for that matter.
jallman said:Smoke screens, red herrings, and revisionism do not make up for pure bigotry and prejudice.
All Iwas doing by stating what I did in my last post was changing a definition....you seemed to have no problem with that until it came to something that YOU oppose....interesting.
Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.
ILikeDubyah said:jallman said:Those aren't actually "inclusions", they're new/alternate definitions added to an existing word....Not to mention that your specific examples are slang...The dictionary lists slang words as such, as to say "not an actual definition, not to be used in this context for formal writing, etc." "Last time I checked, "Marriage" was not a slang word, had no slang definitions, nor was it a word to be tossed around lightly.
I am not dogmatic and rigid, so I will say you have a good point. Those were probably bad examples. However, in an earlier post someone did make a very valid point. Concepts and definitions of marriage have changed over time. In fact, had you been less selective and more honest with your post of the definition of marriage, then you would have posted the rest of the definition that included same sex union. Bigotry is typically coutered with truth though, so I must thank Mr. Fungus for calling you out on your LIE of ommission.
I'm aware that some animals tend to have homosexual relationships, however, humans are not animals. Granted, we fit into Kingdom Animalia in the biology textbook, but what seperates us from the animals are a (the first 3 factua, the last my personal belief) conscience, free will (we're not driven soley by instinct.), opposable thumbs, and above & beyond any of those things, an immortal soul.
I dont recall making any statement to the idea that animals take part in homosexuality. On this issue, I dont care what animals do. Hey, and here is a clue...I dont care what you do, so why do you concern yourself so much with what gays do? Perhaps if people like you spent less time focusing on what others do and start focusing on what you can do for your own family, the divorce rate in America wouldnt be over 50%.
Not "weird" about us, but weird about the situation. It has nothing to do with our individual relationship, it's marriage on the whole that I'd feel weird about. To me, it's just as ridiculous as someone wanting to marry their dog, goldfish, or table lamp for that matter.
Whats weird about the situation? It has nothing to do with you. Unless of course, you so passionately think about homosexuals and their lives that you arent living yours to the fullest. Then I would say you have some other issue that isnt about gays at all. And besides, did you even read my first post, where I said I dont agree with same sex marriage, but I do promote civil union. There should be nothing weird to you about that...it is not a church endorsed matrimony...it is a legal binding of a couple who pay the same taxes, serve the same country, and have the same rights guaranteed in the constitution just by nature of their citizenship and humanity. It doesnt concern you at all then...unless of course, like I said, you so deeply and passionately think about it constantly that it lessens the quality of your life...then you just need help.
All Iwas doing by stating what I did in my last post was changing a definition....you seemed to have no problem with that until it came to something that YOU oppose....interesting.
Dont put words in my mouth. I dont oppose the war at all...I oppose ridiculous analogies that are not germane to the discussion.
Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.
Wow...such intense passion about a group of people you seem to have nothing to do with. Is it ignorance that causes this? Do you dwell on the idea of two men or two women having a relationship so much that you incite this kind of ire in yourself? Why do you dwell on it so much? Do you know any gay people at all? If we were to have civil union, do you think it is going to increase your contact with them? And about this God thing...I was of the impression we have a separation of Church and state. I was of the impression that your religious beliefs could not affect legislation...or am I wrong? If you want to make an argument about the legality or the prohibition of civil union, please try to make your arguments credible instead of based on emotion and prejudice...which by the way, I dont think is your fault. You are just not well informed.
jallman said:ILikeDubyah said:jallman said:I am not dogmatic and rigid, so I will say you have a good point. Those were probably bad examples. However, in an earlier post someone did make a very valid point. Concepts and definitions of marriage have changed over time. In fact, had you been less selective and more honest with your post of the definition of marriage, then you would have posted the rest of the definition that included same sex union. Bigotry is typically coutered with truth though, so I must thank Mr. Fungus for calling you out on your LIE of ommission.
I dont recall making any statement to the idea that animals take part in homosexuality. On this issue, I dont care what animals do. Hey, and here is a clue...I dont care what you do, so why do you concern yourself so much with what gays do? Perhaps if people like you spent less time focusing on what others do and start focusing on what you can do for your own family, the divorce rate in America wouldnt be over 50%.
Whats weird about the situation? It has nothing to do with you. Unless of course, you so passionately think about homosexuals and their lives that you arent living yours to the fullest. Then I would say you have some other issue that isnt about gays at all. And besides, did you even read my first post, where I said I dont agree with same sex marriage, but I do promote civil union. There should be nothing weird to you about that...it is not a church endorsed matrimony...it is a legal binding of a couple who pay the same taxes, serve the same country, and have the same rights guaranteed in the constitution just by nature of their citizenship and humanity. It doesnt concern you at all then...unless of course, like I said, you so deeply and passionately think about it constantly that it lessens the quality of your life...then you just need help.
Dont put words in my mouth. I dont oppose the war at all...I oppose ridiculous analogies that are not germane to the discussion.
Wow...such intense passion about a group of people you seem to have nothing to do with. Is it ignorance that causes this? Do you dwell on the idea of two men or two women having a relationship so much that you incite this kind of ire in yourself? Why do you dwell on it so much? Do you know any gay people at all? If we were to have civil union, do you think it is going to increase your contact with them? And about this God thing...I was of the impression we have a separation of Church and state. I was of the impression that your religious beliefs could not affect legislation...or am I wrong? If you want to make an argument about the legality or the prohibition of civil union, please try to make your arguments credible instead of based on emotion and prejudice...which by the way, I dont think is your fault. You are just not well informed.
LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.
First, this country was settled because of, and founded on religious beliefs....Church & state have never been seperate in this country! People like to believe that that are seperate, and that's fine with me, because if they're busy believing that, it means that we can let Religious Beliefs affect legislation ALL the time! What are you smoking?
I do have 2 gay friends, in fact, they're partners. We debate about this all the time...the difference is that they understand why I believe it's wrong. Also, I have to care about the matter because it does affect me. As a Catholic, it's part of my Christian duty to find the people making immoral/bad/wrong decisions and help them, possibly showing them the way to salvation.
My salvation rests in how good a person I am, and what I do to help others. Gay Marriage...definately a step down the wrong path. It's just like the whole AIDS deal. The majority of Catholics don't have/won't ever get or have anything to do with aids, however, the Catholic Church funds at least 10% of all Aids care & research worldwide....We do it because we care, and we want to help.
You're seeing me being against gay marriage as a negative thing, but I see it only as positive, as My beliefs, my morals, my values, and my religion tell me it's wrong. To have something that I personally, and many many people collectively find wrong SANCTIONED by the government, federal, state, or local is wrong.
You're right, technically, it should be legal for them to marry....I'm just glad it's not, and hopefully it never will be. And actually, the only time I dwell on this subject is when somebody asks me about it. I'm not one of those people at rallies saying it's wrong, or anything like that. There is no need for that right now, as it's still illegal. More than likely it'll be put to vote again, and people in support of it will lose again. I only need concern myself with the people I come into contact with or care about at the moment.
ILikeDubyah said:Yes, it is flat out prejudice, you are correct by stating that...I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.
Plain old me said:Yes, I do, but biology has nothing to do with it. Marriage is a human concept, and I would argue that part of the beauty of being sentient, self-aware, intelligent beings is the ability to realise that science is not the be all and end all of everything, thoughts, feeling and desires are there aswell. If two human men, or women love each other, as a man and a woman might, then should they not have the ability to partake in the human concept of marriage? Just as their heterosexual counterparts can?
I am not saying gay marriage should be forced upon religions...if a particular church do not believe in it, thats their choice. But a government has no reason for illegalising it.
ILikeDubyah said:jallman said:ILikeDubyah said:LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
And, since you have some difficulty reading all of a link, let me be so kind as to post it here too, just as Mr. Fungus did.
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
I also took the liberty of bolding the referenced text for your convenience. I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.
:lol:
jallman said:ILikeDubyah said:jallman said:ILikeDubyah said:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage
And, since you have some difficulty reading all of a link, let me be so kind as to post it here too, just as Mr. Fungus did.
mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj)
n.
The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
The state of being married; wedlock.
A common-law marriage.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
A wedding.
A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose).
Games. The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.
I also took the liberty of bolding the referenced text for your convenience. I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.
:lol:
Honestly, didn't see that....Just FYI, in the dictionary, when words ares in italics, it means "see this word for definition".....meaning that it's not the same thing...it's close, but not the same...the words "a same sex marriage" were italicised before you put it in bold.
Willing liar in what way? Also....love being called "people like you"....that's just funny... The "people like you" offense, rarely do th eones who use it know what type of person they're talking to. And Finally, your opinion of me really has nothing to do with anything, nor do I care. As long as there are people arguing the fact, you'll never win, as you will always be in the minority.
ILikeDubyah said:It also has no reason FOR legalizing it. Single people pay higher taxes, the gov't would lose money there. Also, you don't create legislation to appease the few, it's a waste of time & money. On the flipside, Being that all of the places it was put up for a vote, the pro side got Crushed at the polls, you might say that by illegalizing it, the government created legislation to appease the masses.
[Mod Note]jallman said:I do not wish to discuss this anymore with you because you are either A) a willing liar (which goes against your "I'm a good Catholic" argument) or B) you are an idiot, which would make this debate pointless since you have no comprehension. With people like you arguing this debate, I am sure I will be having my civil union by the next election.
:lol:
As long as there are people arguing the fact, you'll never win, as you will always be in the minority.
jallman said:I would beg to differ...and I cite this post as my source. Along with it, I cite the entire gay marriage forum in the archives. If this is any kind of sampling of opinion...and you believe me to be in the minority with my opinion...then you also need to go back to dictionary.com and look up the definition of minority...but I am sure you would be just as selective about that definition also. Your credibility has
:blowup:
Here's the breakdown of people who have listed affiliation:ILikeDubyah said:First, beg to differ from what? Second, You're using a forum (where it looks to me about 2/3rds of the people on it are Dem/lib) that has less than 2000 members....and only 600 or so are active.
shuamort said:Here's the breakdown of people who have listed affiliation:
Conservatives: 66
Constitutionalists: 1
Independents: 29
Liberal/Progressives: 33
Libertarians: 5
Socialists: 5
ILikeDubyah said:Wow, never would have guessed that...guess the libs are either just really loud, or come here & post more often.
Kelzie said:Or you just blew something out of proportion to make a point...
shuamort said:[Mod Note]
Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum
[/Mod Note]
Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer. Jamesrage
Kelzie said:Or you just blew something out of proportion to make a point...
Unfortunately, I'm not omnipresent.... yet.... Feel free to click on the "report post button in the interim:jallman said:Another liberal spits on the legitimate minorities by comparing behavior to race.All behavior is controllable.No body points a gun at your head and tells you to be a fudge packer. Jamesrage
But let me not split hairs over the issue of impartiality...
Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?jallman said:But let me not split hairs over the issue of impartiality...
shuamort said:Unfortunately, I'm not omnipresent.... yet.... Feel free to click on the "report post button in the interim:
[Mod Note]
Jamesrage, Let's keep the personal attacks out of this forum
[/Mod Note]
Now, I'm curious, where am I being impartial? You do realize that I'm the "gay moderator", right?
ILikeDubyah said:LMAO!!! Have you been to dictionary.com? there is NO MENTION of same sex. The only other dictionaries I have access to are an un-abridged and published in 1900....what do you know, not in there either.
ILikeDubyah said:First, this country was settled because of, and founded on religious beliefs....Church & state have never been seperate in this country! People like to believe that that are seperate, and that's fine with me, because if they're busy believing that, it means that we can let Religious Beliefs affect legislation ALL the time! What are you smoking?
ILikeDubyah said:I do have 2 gay friends, in fact, they're partners. We debate about this all the time...the difference is that they understand why I believe it's wrong. Also, I have to care about the matter because it does affect me. As a Catholic, it's part of my Christian duty to find the people making immoral/bad/wrong decisions and help them, possibly showing them the way to salvation.
ILikeDubyah said:My salvation rests in how good a person I am, and what I do to help others. Gay Marriage...definately a step down the wrong path. It's just like the whole AIDS deal. The majority of Catholics don't have/won't ever get or have anything to do with aids, however, the Catholic Church funds at least 10% of all Aids care & research worldwide....We do it because we care, and we want to help.
ILikeDubyah said:You're seeing me being against gay marriage as a negative thing, but I see it only as positive, as My beliefs, my morals, my values, and my religion tell me it's wrong. To have something that I personally, and many many people collectively find wrong SANCTIONED by the government, federal, state, or local is wrong.
ILikeDubyah said:You're right, technically, it should be legal for them to marry....I'm just glad it's not, and hopefully it never will be. And actually, the only time I dwell on this subject is when somebody asks me about it. I'm not one of those people at rallies saying it's wrong, or anything like that. There is no need for that right now, as it's still illegal. More than likely it'll be put to vote again, and people in support of it will lose again. I only need concern myself with the people I come into contact with or care about at the moment.
y not peace? said:this is endless and pointless. Basically Gays as well as straight have THE RIGHT to their sexual prefernce. To gay bashers: Do gays hurt you? Why do you care about gays? Simply...what they do is none of ur business plus it does no harm. SO LEAVE THEM ALONE.
ILikeDubyah said:jallman said:.I find even the idea of homosexual relationships immoral, disgusting & just plain wrong...not only against the laws of God, but the laws of nature too. So, for leftists, even if you believe Science over God...you should STILL see that it's wrong.
The facts are that animals have gay relationships and that homosexuality is natural(see the web addresses I posted on this forum eariler). So, do you plead stupid or were you lying? And it's not science over your god, it is fact over fiction.
Duke
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?