On same sex marriage and propriatary brand names

[Masada]

only in your opinion but there are ZERO facts that support you

in fact some of your opinions are simply wrong because facts make them wrong

Like which ones? The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate? The fact that human being's sexual organs were designed for men to have sex with women by nature? The fact that historically, every religion in the world denounced homosexuality as immoral or wrong? The fact that heterosexual marriage is widely understood by philosophers to be a cornerstone of civilization?

These types of facts? Or am I speaking over your head now?

 

[Masada]

everybody is free to have opinions :shrug:

lol...that's it? No rebuttal?

This is what I mean. People on the opposite side of this debate lack the education to keep pace in the discussion.

Now, shrug your shoulders and move along, give someone else a crack at it.

 

[captainawesome]

Like which ones? The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate? The fact that human being's sexual organs were designed for men to have sex with women by nature? The fact that historically, every religion in the world denounced homosexuality as immoral or wrong? The fact that heterosexual marriage is widely understood by philosophers to be a cornerstone of civilization?

These types of facts? Or am I speaking over your head now?

Not every religion views homosexuality as wrong.

 

[Masada]

The definition of marriage has indeed changed.

Marriage is now voluntary and about love. It didnt use to be.

So tell me why change is always right. Why do progressive liberals believe just because something changes, it always changes for the betterment of society and humanity? Why? What kind of messed up, delusional logic is that?

 

[Masada]

Not every religion views homosexuality as wrong.

Which one?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

You mean the only people left with a shred of traditional morality will be 90 year old psychos with dementia who everyone laughs at during family reunions.

No, I meant what I said.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

marriage inst a brand name
complete fail

/end thread

One of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

 

[Masada]

No, I meant what I said.

Ya, thought so. Anything more intelligent to add? Or are you happy with your hillbilly version of the truth?

 

[captainawesome]

So tell me why change is always right. Why do progressive liberals believe just because something changes, it always changes for the betterment of society and humanity? Why? What kind of messed up, delusional logic is that?

Liberty is good.

Marriage has changed and will again.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

ya, thought so. Anything more intelligent to add? Or are you happy with your hillbilly version of the truth?

lol
--

 

[Dittohead not!]

See? Already three pages of debate on both sides of the issue, and all over a single word. It would be so simple to just rename homosexual unions and be done with it. As it is, the anti gay marriage people will never give up their fight.

It would make an interesting case should a church group or someone with similar interests should start a copyright infringement sort of lawsuit against gay marriage, wouldn't it? I wonder what the result of that would be?

California's Proposition 8 centered around that one word, marriage, which is why the constitutional challenge to it was so absurd. The lawsuit, as I recall it, had to do with substantial changes to the (state) constitution, which this was not. Now, the will of the people has been overturned by the court, and that's a fact whether or not you think the will of the people was good, moral, right, or whether you think it was wrong and bigoted.

 

[Masada]

Liberty is good.

Marriage has changed and will again.

Soooo, liberty to kill is good? Liberty to steal is good? Liberty to beat your wife is good? Liberty to abuse your children is good? Liberty to drive drunk is good? Liberty to cheat on your taxes is good?

Again, some people simply do not think before they speak. Total liberty to do what ever one pleases is "chaos", and if men were angels, no law would be necessary. But reality is, men aren't angels, we're far from it. In the context of what's good for society, there's no rational argument for total liberty, for it is an argument for chaos. Total liberty within the definition of marriage creates chaos within the institution of marriage, which makes way for men marrying 47 women, their daughters, minors, animals, etc. When there is total liberty to marry "whomever you love", what is the logical argument against a man marrying 47 different women "whom he loves"????

Again, this debate requires you not only to think, but to think philosophically and logically. If you can't do that, you have no business debating the definition of such an important institution like marriage.

 

[Masada]

lol
--

I'll take that as you being happy with your hillbilly version of the truth. For the record, ThePlayDrive has officially submitted his hillbilly version of reality. No, he has nothing more to add. No, he has nothing more intelligent than that to say. I don't know if he's from Alabama? Yes, his lean does say "liberal". Ok, we all understand. Moving forward.

next............

 

[AGENT J]

Like which ones?
1.)The fact that homosexuals cannot procreate?
2.)The fact that human being's sexual organs were designed for men to have sex with women by nature? T
3.) The fact that historically, every religion in the world denounced homosexuality as immoral or wrong?
4.) The fact that heterosexual marriage is widely understood by philosophers to be a cornerstone of civilization?
5.) These types of facts? Or am I speaking over your head now?

1.) meaningless to marriage
2.) meaningless to marriage
3.) 100% false
4.) which isnt impacted by gay marriage
5.) yes them that have no barring on marriage

nothing that you said above FACTUALLY impacts your opinionated claim

none of those things factual do anythign to the aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects.

so yes you have ZERO facts to support your opinion, sorry facts and reality are over your head, try again

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I'll take that as you being happy with your hillbilly version of the truth. For the record, ThePlayDrive has officially submitted his hillbilly version of reality. No, he has nothing more to add. No, he has nothing more intelligent than that to say. I don't know if he's from Alabama? Yes, his lean does say "liberal". Ok, we all understand. Moving forward.

next............

......

 

[Helix]

Of course you dont, because to you, "marriage" is SOLELY a civil contract, nothing more. But you ignore the fact that traditionally speaking, this country has always viewed "marriage" as something including civil contracts, but other aspects as well. What the left has done is shed "marriage" of everything accept it's "civil" nature. The left rejects the moral nature of marriage. The spiritual nature of marriage. The sacramental nature of marriage. Today, it's merely a "civil contract" recognized by government, nothing more.

why do you assume i consider it only a civil contract? it is a civil contract, but there's also more to it.

So, informed and studied people see this. We KNOW the full definition of marriage, and we exclude no part of it. People like you do.

incorrect.

The only aspect same sex couples could even possibly qualify for "marriage" is through the civil aspect. Legal is another word for civil in this case. Yes, "legally" gays could come together in a legally recognized relationship. Civil unions accomplish that. But same sex relationships violate other aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects.

that's your opinion, and it isn't shared by everyone, not even all of those who are religious.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)lol...that's it? No rebuttal?

2.)This is what I mean. People on the opposite side of this debate lack the education to keep pace in the discussion.

Now, shrug your shoulders and move along, give someone else a crack at it.

1.) a rebuttal isnt needed, people are free to have their opinions
2.) again you fail my education lets me understand the fact you are free to have this opinion in this free country but thats all it is, its just an OPINION
3.) no need i already defeated it unless of your lack of education thinks you stated some facts or anything that matters?

please let us know so we can be further entertained

 

[AGENT J]

One of the worst analogies I've ever seen.

agreed it made ZERO sense

i could use that failed analogy for everything

 

[Masada]

1.) meaningless to marriage
2.) meaningless to marriage
3.) 100% false
4.) which isnt impacted by gay marriage
5.) yes them that have no barring on marriage

nothing that you said above FACTUALLY impacts your opinionated claim

none of those things factual do anythign to the aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects.

so yes you have ZERO facts to support your opinion, sorry facts and reality are over your head, try again

For pete sake, go get yourself a grape soda and bag of skiddles and let the grown ups discuss things. Just because you're too uneducated to understand the philosophical nature of "marriage", doesn't mean it's not important.

I bet you don't understand algebra very well either, so I guess to you, changing the definition of "pi" wouldn't have any effect on algebra either.

Philosophy isn't "science", so your search for "facts" is futile. One expects third graders to understand this. But for you, it has to be explained time and time again. Now go find that grape soda.

 

[Masada]

1.) a rebuttal isnt needed, people are free to have their opinions
2.) again you fail my education lets me understand the fact you are free to have this opinion in this free country but thats all it is, its just an OPINION
3.) no need i already defeated it unless of ours your lack of education thinks you stated some facts or anything that matters?

please let us know so we can be further entertained

Your grammer is so poor, I can't tell what you're saying. Try harder. My education didn't teach me how to have discussions with adults with 1st grade reading levels and grammar skills.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)For pete sake, go get yourself a grape soda and bag of skiddles and let the grown ups discuss things. Just because you're too uneducated to understand the philosophical nature of "marriage", doesn't mean it's not important.

2.) I bet you don't understand algebra very well either, so I guess to you, changing the definition of "pi" wouldn't have any effect on algebra either.

3.)Philosophy isn't "science", so your search for "facts" is futile. One expects third graders to understand this. But for you, it has to be explained time and time again. Now go find that grape soda.

1.) translation, you have nothing and you cant logical or intelligently back up your claim with anything of substance based on reality and facts. we get it
2.) i have a degree in math :shrug:
3.) good thing i didnt say it was but please make up another strawman

we will continue to wait for you to prove that you have anything more than weak and failed opinions.

the fact remains that your statement, this statment:
"same sex relationships violate other aspects of "marriage", like moral aspects, spiritual aspects, sacramental aspects, historical aspects, even biological aspects."
was opinion at best and parts of it are factually wrong

let us know when this fat changes

 

[AGENT J]

Your grammer is so poor, I can't tell what you're saying. Try harder. My education didn't teach me how to have discussions with adults with 1st grade reading levels and grammar skills.

translation: you have nothing, but we knew that already

your failed insults show your desperation to deflect since your failed and inane logic cant be supported by any facts or reality.

 

[soot]

Reality is, YES THEY ARE asking for more than social or legal equality, they are asking a society to redefine an institution entirely. What does that have to do with legal rights? NOTHING. Civil union rights could identically mirror marriage rights legally. Every tax advantage, every adoption advantage, every inheritance advantage, every legal advantage there is. IDENTICALLY. Tell me that's not possible....because it is. In fact, it's been suggested, even in the OP.

That's a completely asinine argument.

It's like arguing that black people shouldn't really want to consider themselves "free" because freedom is a white concept and there are hundreds of years of white history and tradition built upon the back of the institution of freedom.

Black people should stop being so uppity and satisfy themselves with the term "non-property". It means the same thing, they have all the same rights as whites, but they really go too far with their selfishness when they demand to be called "free".

The bottom line is that you, and anyone else would would stand in the way of full and fair marriage rights for all adult homosexuals is a bigot.

 

[Masada]

why do you assume i consider it only a civil contract? it is a civil contract, but there's also more to it.



incorrect.



that's your opinion, and it isn't shared by everyone, not even all of those who are religious.

What more to marriage is there, other than the civil nature then? You tell me.....

You are excluding the other aspects of marriage. I know this because you support SSM. One couldn't logically call it "marriage" if it violates the aspects of marriage. lol....

Not only is it my opinion, but the opinion of the United States Government for over 200 years, countless theologians, countless philosophers. But the truth is, people like you don't care a single bit about the opinions of greater men than yourself. YOUR opinion is the only one that matters. THAT'S modern day society.

We are the least educated society in the last 1000 years. By throwing off all the wisdom and knowledge of yesteryear, modern society has relegated itself to a bunch of uneducated people with even stronger opinions on matters they haven't studied for more than 1 hour in their lifetime.

What's your opinion on social philosophy compared to Socrates, Plato, or even John Locke? All of which recognized the sacred nature of heterosexual marriage as a fundamental cornerstone of human civilization. What's your opinion next to theirs?

Pffff....the only thing that exceeds your ignorance is your arrogance.

 

[Masada]

That's a completely asinine argument.

It's like arguing that black people shouldn't really want to consider themselves "free" because freedom is a white concept and there are hundreds of years of white history and tradition built upon the back of the institution of freedom.

Black people should stop being so uppity and satisfy themselves with the term "non-property". It means the same thing, they have all the same rights as whites, but they really go too far with their selfishness when they demand to be called "free".

The bottom line is that you, and anyone else would would stand in the way of full and fair marriage rights for all adult homosexuals is a bigot.

NIce try, now let me educate you on why it utterly fails.

Progressing from slavery to freedom is morally good. Therefore, no moral or religious argument could logically be made to keep men slaves, because it is immoral to enslave. How do I know this is a moral issue? Because even our country's founders recognized "freedom" to be a right given to humanity, NOT BY GOVERNMENT, but BY GOD.

The example of SSM is precisely the opposite. Progression from hetero "marriage" to "hetero and homo" marriage would be morally wrong. Therefore, a moral argument can still be made that even if the secular government grants legal status to homosexual couples called "marriage", it doesn't change the immoral nature of homosexuality. Which is why the founders didn't say God gave man the inalienable rights of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and homosexual marriage.