Gays beware

[Ontologuy]

You can't comprehend?

Your ad hominem is uncalled for.

I can spell it out.

Likely not accurately.

Society accepts the definition of marriage that includes same sex partners.

False, obviously, or all across America this topic wouldn't be the topic of contention that it is.

You posted this " It is up to society respecting definitive propriety." I think society has done just that,

No, you are in error with respect to saying society has respected the use of the term "marriage" to apply to SS-couples.

It was posted in another thread at this site a gallup poll reference that although society at large leans toward allowing SS-couples' committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions recognition by government and private enterprise, when asked if those who support that recognition prefer a different term than "marriage" to describe SS-couples' relevant relationships, that is supported by the great majority, meaning the "group consensus" of society is to use a different term for these relationships other than "marriage".

you are just angry that it is the opposite of what you want.

This is pure and obvious projection on your part.

Sorry, your definition is the one that is wrong by societal propriety.

Again, false, obviously.

 

[Ontologuy]

When I introduce my husband, people know what i am saying. So it seems that the definition does include same sex couples.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise, obviously.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your ad hominem is uncalled for.

your over sensitivity is your problem. You said you couldn't comprehend. I simply pointed that out.

Likely not accurately.

To fit your fantasy, not my concern.

False, obviously, or all across America this topic wouldn't be the topic of contention that it is.

lots of topics are topics of contention. Lower taxes, abortion, death penalty.

No, you are in error with respect to saying society has respected the use of the term "marriage" to apply to SS-couples.

no I an not, twelve states have made laws respecting it, only more will come.

It was posted in another thread at this site a gallup poll reference that although society at large leans toward allowing SS-couples' committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions recognition by government and private enterprise, when asked if those who support that recognition prefer a different term than "marriage" to describe SS-couples' relevant relationships, that is supported by the great majority, meaning the "group consensus" of society is to use a different term for these relationships other than "marriage".

semantics.

This is pure and obvious projection on your part.

I think it's clear to everybody that reads your pathetic posts.

Again, false, obviously.

So you were lying when you said
"it is up to society respecting definitive propriety."

It's okay I knew that when you stated it.

 

[CLAX1911]

Your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise, obviously.

You are the only one that thinks so, so it doesn't matter.

 

[CLAX1911]

simply because you believe something is true, don't necessarily make it so.

The basic premise that marriage has always been ONLY between one man and one woman is not a true statement. There have been many variations of ceremonially-blessed joinings of lovers. A lack of historic knowledge does appear to be the source of many false beliefs.

took the words out of my mouth. Historically massage has meant many different things.

 

[Ontologuy]

your over sensitivity is your problem. You said you couldn't comprehend. I simply pointed that out. To fit your fantasy, not my concern. lots of topics are topics of contention. Lower taxes, abortion, death penalty. no I an not, twelve states have made laws respecting it, only more will come. semantics. I think it's clear to everybody that reads your pathetic posts. So you were lying when you said "it is up to society respecting definitive propriety." It's okay I knew that when you stated it.

States erring in using "marriage" to apply to same-sex relevant relationships is simply that: an error .. one that will eventually be corrected.

No number of errors will create a correctness.

The rest of your post is either irrelevant or the unprovoked casting of dispersion on my character, thus deserves no response.

 

[Ontologuy]

You are the only one that thinks so, so it doesn't matter.

False, obviously .. just look at the Gallup Poll.

 

[CLAX1911]

States erring in using "marriage" to apply to same-sex relevant relationships is simply that: an error .. one that will eventually be corrected.

So you are going back on things you said earlier.

" It is up to society respecting definitive propriety."
Apparently society doesn't get to define words if you disagree with their definition. Ha ha ha, discrediting you is so easy.

No number of errors will create a correctness.

can't have your cake and eat it too. Society must be wrong if the definition doesn't fit your opinion?

The rest of your post is either irrelevant or the unprovoked casting of dispersion on my character, thus deserves no response.

Ha ha ha ha ha, you just responded to it.

 

[CLAX1911]

False, obviously .. just look at the Gallup Poll.

Post a link.

A reputable one please

 

[Ontologuy]

So you are going back on things you said earlier. " It is up to society respecting definitive propriety."
Apparently society doesn't get to define words if you disagree with their definition. Ha ha ha, discrediting you is so easy.
can't have your cake and eat it too. Society must be wrong if the definition doesn't fit your opinion? Ha ha ha ha ha, you just responded to it.

You've clearly miscomprehended what I presented.

That accounts for your meaningless post here.

 

[Ontologuy]

Post a link. A reputable one please

The link was posted long ago in another thread.

Use the forum's search facility to find it yourself.

Doing your validation work is not my responsibility.

I simply told the truth.

If you want to challenge it, do the challenge work yourself.

 

[CLAX1911]

You've clearly miscomprehended what I presented.

That accounts for your meaningless post here.

No, you just were contradicting yourself.

 

[CLAX1911]

The link was posted long ago in another thread.

Use the forum's search facility to find it yourself.

Doing your validation work is not my responsibility.

I simply told the truth.

If you want to challenge it, do the challenge work yourself.

Nope, you are lying, you can't prove your position, or you refuse to. You really are terrible at this.

 

[opendebate]

False, obviously .. just look at the Gallup Poll.

I honestly do not mean any disrespect but you seem very committed to gay issues. It makes me curious as to why? May I please ask why are you so passionate?

 

[CLAX1911]

The link was posted long ago in another thread.

Use the forum's search facility to find it yourself.

Doing your validation work is not my responsibility.

I simply told the truth.

If you want to challenge it, do the challenge work yourself.

There is no such poll, your position is based on a fabrication. It isn't my responsibility to prove you wrong, I know you are.

 

[CriticalThought]

It is the respect for words and their true meaning as a foundational tool of accurate communication.

This from a person who uses the term "birth defect" despite having no medical basis to do so aside from his personal opinion, a political pundit's rant, and a single unvalidated study.

ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

Your posts on this topic are as irrational, illogical, baseless, uninformed, meaningless, and utterly devoid of intellectual honestly as any post I have ever seen on this forum. And you have the audacity to demand that others respect "accurate communication".

 

[Paschendale]

Takei had it right with "douchebag". It's really simple, decent and moral people stand for equality. Indecent and immoral people don't. In fact, that's probably one of the best measures to determine if someone is decent and moral.

 

[douglas]

All of this is absolutely false.

Please refer to this post for a more accurate presentation of why mentally and emotionally intelligent and unbiased people oppose the oxymoronic "gay marriage", oppose the use of the word "marriage" applied to SS couples: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news-mainstream-media/172031-gay-marriage-americas-house-may-not-stay-divided-long-w-29-210-a-53.html#post1062299028.

False .. absolutely false.

It is up to society respecting definitive propriety.

This use of a "definitive property" (wherever that came from), is simply an Appeal to Tradition fallacy. Neither the number of people who believe something or the length of time they believe it will make it any more true or false.

The idea that words must never change is obviously untrue, since all languages change over time. We don't speak the same English as our ancestors, and our descendants will speak a different English than us. That's perfectly natural and is morally neutral. All words will change in meaning, just as they already have. Society also changes, and that is also morally neutral from a secular perspective. The only people that have a problem with words or society changing are those that cling to the past; It's going to change, whether you like it or not. Your options are either embrace the change, or be left behind.

There was some confusion about the Gallup polls; Although it's also a logical fallacy to state that there is truth in numbers, the Gallup polls show a majority support for same-sex marriage. I make no argument or assumption that this denounces any truth in itself, but it does prove that people are leaving the old definition and embracing the new one. Make your own opinion:

 

[Ari]

Sith'ari.

That pwns.

What?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Back to the topic. Ontologuy has been thread banned.

 

[Ari]

I honestly do not mean any disrespect but you seem very committed to gay issues. It makes me curious as to why? May I please ask why are you so passionate?

Thanks Opendebate for asking the question we all want asked. :mrgreen:

 

[LuckyLarry]

Im struggling to find humor in this video's attempt to characterize heterosexual marriages as dysfunctional and those in them as slobbish "in the closet" homophobes. It's an attempt to mislead. Portraying the clean upperclass homosexual couple as the quintessential gay couple is also misleading.

This is nothing more than homosexual propaganda distorting reality. And if that doesn't work then throw in a nice ad hominem at the end. Classic.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

Back to the topic. Ontologuy has been thread banned.

Moderator's Warning:

Thread ban issued in error. Ontologuy has been reinstated to the thread.

 

[CRUE CAB]

George Takei is funny ****, although I didn't like him on Star Trek. Seriously, it just wasn't his best work. That aside, this video pretty much sums it all up with the closing argument; those who oppose marriage equality just don't know that they're being a**holes. They can roll around the world, spouting out Naturalist Fallacies and trying to appeal to tradition or religion, but it all comes down to your personal dislike for them. You're not sticking up for your religious tenants, or the good of society, or the way it's supposed to be,.. your just an a**hole, whether you can accept it or not. If someone tried to regulate your marriages, you'd call them a**holes, too. Stupid people.

Wait, what?
If you disagree with gay marriage, you are an asshole? Period, no explaination, no reason, no justification is good enough.
Either you agree with or you are an asshole?
Thank you for making me more anti gay marriage.

 

[davidtaylorjr]

George Takei is funny ****, although I didn't like him on Star Trek. Seriously, it just wasn't his best work. That aside, this video pretty much sums it all up with the closing argument; those who oppose marriage equality just don't know that they're being a**holes. They can roll around the world, spouting out Naturalist Fallacies and trying to appeal to tradition or religion, but it all comes down to your personal dislike for them. You're not sticking up for your religious tenants, or the good of society, or the way it's supposed to be,.. your just an a**hole, whether you can accept it or not. If someone tried to regulate your marriages, you'd call them a**holes, too. Stupid people.

False