Gays beware

[Captain America]

 

[Ontologuy]

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?

Your assumptions are both a mischaracterization intended to disparage and topically irrelevant.

Once again, I will ask you to stick to the topic and post topically relevant content and then I'll discuss the issue with you.

 

[Ontologuy]

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.

As you are aware by now, the thread I more recently created in the Sex and Sexuality forum validates your assertion here is false.

 

[Ontologuy]

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:

You, like most left-wingers on this topic, mistake "usage" for "definition" and "meaning".

I've detailed the refutation to your error in another recent thread in this forum. Please see that thread.

In addition, your poll is not the same poll to which I was referring (again, please see the more recent relevant thread on the topic). Your poll is grossly unfair to respondents as it forces people to choose between not wanting recognition for SS-couples' relevant relationships and not wanting the erroneous oxymoronic usage of the word "marriage" to describe them. Thus your poll provides no real and valid information on the subject.

The poll I presented in the more recent thread accurately addresses the information presentation needs relevant to this topic.

 

[Ontologuy]

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

False, obviously.

"we 'ALL'" are not attempting to "cleverly" cast dispersions on my character.

Only left-wingers supporting the oxymoronic term "marriage" for SS-Couples' relevant relationships are doing that.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As you are aware by now, the thread I more recently created in the Sex and Sexuality forum validates your assertion here is false.

And as I did two other times, I proved that you didn't know... and still don't know what you are talking about. You either don't understand statistics or you dishonestly interpret them. I showed this 3 months ago, and last night. Now, I'm SURE you are going to deny this as you deny all of reality on this issue, but it doesn't alter the fact that you've been dismembered on this. You were wrong and proven so.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You, like most left-wingers on this topic, mistake "usage" for "definition" and "meaning".

I've detailed the refutation to your error in another recent thread in this forum. Please see that thread.

In addition, your poll is not the same poll to which I was referring (again, please see the more recent relevant thread on the topic). Your poll is grossly unfair to respondents as it forces people to choose between not wanting recognition for SS-couples' relevant relationships and not wanting the erroneous oxymoronic usage of the word "marriage" to describe them. Thus your poll provides no real and valid information on the subject.

The poll I presented in the more recent thread accurately addresses the information presentation needs relevant to this topic.

And your refutation has been shown to be invalid. Therefore, everything you have posted here has been nothing but hot air with no substance.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Absolutely false.

Mistakes of application are simply that: mistakes.

No amount of mistakes has the power to rightly and accurately redefine, in this case, the word "marriage", which means and has always meant "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

SS-couples' committed romantic domestic partnership civil unions are rightly called "homosexual marriage" or "homarriage" or the like ..

.. But not "marriage".

It really is that simple.

Your argument seems to be based entirely on "a majority of the population is against gay marriage". This is false, but let's for a minute assume it was true. In the US, the majority does not get to decide the rights of the minority. All citizens are supposed to have equal rights.

For some reason you've got enough hate in your heart to want to deny rights to others that you readily enjoy. Every one of us in a minority in some category.

 

[Ontologuy]

Your argument seems to be based entirely on "a majority of the population is against gay marriage". This is false, but let's for a minute assume it was true. In the US, the majority does not get to decide the rights of the minority. All citizens are supposed to have equal rights. For some reason you've got enough hate in your heart to want to deny rights to others that you readily enjoy. Every one of us in a minority in some category.

Your "seems" is erroneous.

It rightly seems that my argument is based on an accurate presentation of the true meaning of the word "marriage".

Thus, since your premise is false, so are your conclusions, including your mistaken presumption that this is a "rights" issue ..

.. Which also includes the typical left-wing irrational response that those who oppose them are "haters". :roll:

 

[Somerville]

False, obviously.

"we 'ALL'" are not attempting to "cleverly" cast dispersions on my character.

Only left-wingers supporting the oxymoronic term "marriage" for SS-Couples' relevant relationships are doing that.

I believe the word you should have used was "aspersions"

dispersions: noun the action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.

aspersion: noun an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something.


Maybe, just maybe, you should step back and do a bit of contemplation concerning your obsession with the marriage of people you don't know. Take a deep breath and calm yourself.

 

[Ontologuy]

I believe the word you should have used was "aspersions"

dispersions: noun the action or process of distributing things or people over a wide area.

aspersion: noun an attack on the reputation or integrity of someone or something.

Thank you.

I appreciate you helping to make me a more effective debater.

Maybe, just maybe, you should step back and do a bit of contemplation concerning your obsession with the marriage of people you don't know. Take a deep breath and calm yourself.

Your projection is irrelevant .. and erroneous in its attempted premise.

 

[CLAX1911]

As you are aware by now, the thread I more recently created in the Sex and Sexuality forum validates your assertion here is false.

No it didn't your link you posted there is phony also.

 

[Somerville]

Thank you.

I appreciate you helping to make me a more effective debater.



Your projection is irrelevant .. and erroneous in its attempted premise.

I'm erroneous? Really? You are the one who obsessively post anti gay threads, you are the one who refuses to accept that other humans have equal rights but my "projection is irrelevant"? Interesting.


Religious beliefs do cause dementia - I truly believe.

 

[Ontologuy]

I'm erroneous? Really? You are the one who obsessively post anti gay threads, you are the one who refuses to accept that other humans have equal rights but my "projection is irrelevant"? Interesting.

Again, this is not a rights issue, any more than a cat-owner complaining they weren't allowed to enter their cat in a dog show is a rights issue, as I've proven over and over again.

Religious beliefs do cause dementia - I truly believe.

Do you speak from experience?

Not being of any religion or religious in any way, I can't speak for myself on that.

 

[Somerville]

Again, this is not a rights issue, any more than a cat-owner complaining they weren't allowed to enter their cat in a dog show is a rights issue, as I've proven over and over again.



Do you speak from experience?

Not being of any religion or religious in any way, I can't speak for myself on that.

Yeah, right! (insert sarcasm gif here)

 

[Monserrat]

George Takei :kitty:

...wait, what is this topic about? All I got was George Takei (which automatically makes it awesome) bow ties, Broadway musicals and assholes.

 

[CLAX1911]

Again, this is not a rights issue, any more than a cat-owner complaining they weren't allowed to enter their cat in a dog show is a rights issue, as I've proven over and over again.



Do you speak from experience?

Not being of any religion or religious in any way, I can't speak for myself on that.

You ate going to keep it up with this nonsensical comparison huh? I guess its no more ridiculous than your phony links and conclusions that aren't supported.

 

[douglas]

You, like most left-wingers on this topic, mistake "usage" for "definition" and "meaning".

I've detailed the refutation to your error in another recent thread in this forum. Please see that thread.

In addition, your poll is not the same poll to which I was referring (again, please see the more recent relevant thread on the topic). Your poll is grossly unfair to respondents as it forces people to choose between not wanting recognition for SS-couples' relevant relationships and not wanting the erroneous oxymoronic usage of the word "marriage" to describe them. Thus your poll provides no real and valid information on the subject.

The poll I presented in the more recent thread accurately addresses the information presentation needs relevant to this topic.

Sir, if you used a dictionary from the 18th century, you would speak like a person from the 18th century and very few people would understand you now. That you used the "definitions" of that age would not make us in the wrong for using the same words in a different manner. When it comes to language and the definitions that make it up, society always wins over any dictionary, especially dictionaries of the past. The common usage of a word defines it, not the other way around.

Again, simple history proves you wrong; or is it that my fluent English is just horrible Latin?

My poll describes the only possible outcomes of this debate; "civil union" vs "marriage" are 100% identical, since you can't force them to call themselves a "union"; they're going to call themselves married and have it recognized by the state, or they'll call themselves married and not have it recognized by the state. There is no "union" option. The sole reason to even present this false option is to stir the pot, to divide us. It won't work, we're not as stupid as you must think.

 

[CriticalThought]

You, like most left-wingers on this topic, mistake "usage" for "definition" and "meaning".

I've detailed the refutation to your error in another recent thread in this forum. Please see that thread.

In addition, your poll is not the same poll to which I was referring (again, please see the more recent relevant thread on the topic). Your poll is grossly unfair to respondents as it forces people to choose between not wanting recognition for SS-couples' relevant relationships and not wanting the erroneous oxymoronic usage of the word "marriage" to describe them. Thus your poll provides no real and valid information on the subject.

The poll I presented in the more recent thread accurately addresses the information presentation needs relevant to this topic.

I am not one for the semantic debate, but after meeting you I will now full heartedly settle for nothing less than calling it marriage. You have converted me. I find your arguments and behavior so detestable that now I will demand nothing less than the word itself.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am not one for the semantic debate, but after meeting you I will now full heartedly settle for nothing less than calling it marriage. You have converted me. I find your arguments and behavior so detestable that now I will demand nothing less than the word itself.

Right on brother. No compromise we want it all and we will take it!!!

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Your "seems" is erroneous.

It rightly seems that my argument is based on an accurate presentation of the true meaning of the word "marriage".

Thus, since your premise is false, so are your conclusions, including your mistaken presumption that this is a "rights" issue ..

.. Which also includes the typical left-wing irrational response that those who oppose them are "haters". :roll:

More nonsense from someone who has been completely refuted on this issue, repeatedly for the past 3 months. All one has to do is read any thread where you have made an argument to see how all of your arguments have been rendered invalid with data and logic, whereas all you post is supposition, misrepresentations, and personal and erroneous interpretations... and occasionally outright lies.

Look around you, Ontologuy. No one is buying the crap that you are peddling. Everyone can see how absurdly inaccurate what you post is. I wouldn't know myself, but I wonder how it feels to be you and to have all of your dishonest arguments exposed.

 

[joko104]

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:

In 1958, 94% opposed interracial marriages. Now only 14% do. The opposition to gay marriage is declining at a much faster rate.

 

[joko104]

False, obviously.

"we 'ALL'" are not attempting to "cleverly" cast dispersions on my character.

Only left-wingers supporting the oxymoronic term "marriage" for SS-Couples' relevant relationships are doing that.

Your now repeated usage of "left-wingers" demonstrates you do not believe a word you posted even on this thread about word usages accuracy.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The only reason that people say "gay marriage" or "SSM" instead of just "marriage" or "married couple" is because when debating one must be able to distinguish between the two things being discussed. Otherwise it gets very very confusing to tell just what exactly is being debated. So here is the question that must be posed.

When you see a gay couple that you know is married and you are curious as to how their marriage is doing due to some financial hardships that you know have been happening (number 1 cause for divorce is money according to some statistics I saw a long time ago) what do you say? Do you say: "How is your gay marriage going Joe?" or "How how is your marriage going Joe?"

I can tell you right now that I for one will say "How how is your marriage going Joe?". Why? Because when not debating there is no need to show distinctions between gay marriage and plain old marriage as there is no confusion when addressing a married couple.

 

[Quag]

Great video