- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And we currently all have the exact same rights, you can deny it all you want, however it is quite provable.
Sigh...I proved my point and you ignored it. That is a fail on you because you didn't like that you were wrong.
All this talk about other people's bias, but when confronted with your own, you run and hide. Pathetic.
You are making a strong argument FOR same sex marriage. Canada, for example, did not legalize same sex marriage as just a liberal principle. It did so largely as a conservative and moral principle because the institution regulates the sexual behavior of homosexuals and provides additional stable homes for children. Trying to compare same sex marriage to no fault divorce is ridiculous and a large part of the reason your side has been losing this debate. Extending marriage to same sex couples leads to MORE people marrying, not less.
Since 2003. That was when Lawrence versus Texas struck down sodomy laws. The "tolerance" of our nation is a decade old.
You argue that the whole "nature v. nurture" debate has not been settled while arguing that gays recruit people to homosexuality. That is intellectually dishonest. You made up your mind, and the science has shown pretty strong evidence that homosexuality is based on combination of factors, biology being a large part of it.
Same sex marriage does serve a state interest. Hundreds of thousands of children in this country are raised by gay parents. They deserve the same benefits of marriage as children being raised by opposite sex parents get to enjoy. The fact that you ignore this is further evidence of your intellectual dishonesty.
Promote? Are you kidding? So when gays practice promiscuous sex outside of committed relationships then that is acceptable? But we would not want to promote that they practice committed, monogamous relationships the way we do for heterosexuals...with marriage? Social conservatism is a walking contradiction.
Society will always have that conversation and it will be based on what is best for society, not the interest of the few. I am confident that same sex marriage will prove to be best for society as a whole. Whether or not it can be extended beyond same sex marriage is a different debate and one we will have as a society regardless of whether or not same sex marriage is made legal. Trying to conflate the issue by turning to an appeal to consequences fallacy is not very convincing nor rational.
Ditto.Apply that same reasoning to the argument you made above.
Innovation and reason trump tradition. We have no progressed as a society by always doing things the same way simply because they appeared to work well in the past. We question our assumptions and challenge ourselves to look for better ways. Your appeal to tradition fallacy and slippery slope fallacy are as stale as always. For somebody who promised me an "educated" debate you rely quite a bit on logical fallacies and a lack of evidence.
1.) well aware, remind me how many of them were done by that states supreme court?
1a.) so you have not facts still just you opinion, i knew that already
yeah, those your opinions are they?? ha ha ha...your off the cuff opinions about an my opinion, my opinion based on fact...guess which trumps?1b.) plausible based on your OPINION
Think this one originally related to gay marriage requiring special rights. If everyone has equal rights now, and we do as I have the same restrictions in place as do all others, cannot marry my brother or mother, sister, cousin or daughter, cannot marry another man, someone too young, cannot marry an animal, cannot marry 12 other people or even two at the same time legally...we all have all the same restrictions and rights at this point... we would have to grant special rights to gay people to do something like let them marry someone of the same sex... isnt that special....2.) again that long story had zero FACTUAL or LOGICAL impact only your opinion that you think it matters with nothing but your "feelings" to support it, so no sharpening needed, because i dont buy your dull "story"
So, you don't even know the court ruling that you assert...wow...2a.) are you saying you are unaware of this, i thought you were chest beating earlier and said you are educated on this topic? lol
first, who ever said anything about US laws exclusively...?? However...4.) so you are not going to qoute the us laws that make gay culture illegal? thanks thats what i thought, deflection noted LMAO
my honesty is what makes me laugh at your opinion pushed as facts
what was criminal you still havent said it, what law are you referring to?
So wrong historically as to be embarrassing.5.) you fail in the first sentence because they are special, justices already disagree with you and everybody else doesnt matter because like your argument fails so will theirs. Saying its completely equal is simply a lie.
Like i said justices already disagree with you. But you are welcome to keep you OPINION.
Since you have not quoted anything, always expecting me to either find your silliness someplace or just making it up, who knows... cite if you want a response, cannot bother any longer with your addressing your phantom court cases...6.) no it was a complete failure as court rullings support those people and the only support you have is your "feelings" LMAO nothing was dismantled in reality.
7.) who said they have to be exact but they do have to be parallels and you claiming that a minotiy group like child rapists would want "special rights" based on equal rights for gays is asinine. Nobody sane, logical and honest would by that.
you want to know what rights would be taken away if rape was made legal???/? LMAO you cant be serious, now i know you are just making stuff up since you lost and are just talking circles for fun
8.) yes you were 100% wrong because this is the start of your dishonest, illogical, straw-man rant "Don't attempt to label me and how educated I am." i never did this, i said you are uneducated about this topic. and you reant was about general knowledge and chest beating that was pointless and impressed nobody
9.) its already proven, my quote and what i actually said proves it? are you hoping that today my post will be different and has different words in it? LMAO
I made a statement about "A" you tried to relate my statement or claimed it meant "B" it factually did not and there no logic or facts to even support that false conclusion.
if you feel differently by all means post my quote here AGAIN and disect it, show me where my words meant minorities that didnt have rights yet or minorities ilke pedophilia. Id LOVE to hear it and if you can, i sir will admit you were right.
10.) translation, you have nothing, it was a fail and multiples have rules on it, not just one LOL so yes, it was a good try by you
11.) i thought so, and like i said that wasnt an insult, i could honestly tell you were drinking, a little to much babbling, filler, random sayings/quotes and non related material being typed LOL
Yeah, they should not have had to earn it through horrible abuses. It should have been theirs to begin with and you just want the gays to get beaten on for your amusement.
Actually, I did refute you before that, but next time feel free to cut that part of the quote out it will make you seem a little more reliable.
Like always you delve into absurdity when you decide to go somewhere. I do however, agree that family members should be allowed special legal responsibilities like shared health care, legal decision making in the case of injury, hospital visitation rights, shared wealth and inheritance, and most of the things a marriage contract legally deals with. Oh, and yes family members already have methods of having those partnerships in a legal sense. What you are talking about stopping is sexual relations which the marriage contract actually does little about considering you are allowed to have sexual relations without a marriage contract, but yet things like sex with a child are illegal no matter what. So you are arguing a completely different point and laws that do not connect with each other. Being married does not make sex automatically legal considering you can have a rape of a spouse.
So do you have any real points, or are we just going to hear more about you not being a bigot.
nope you are wrong :shrug:
BUT id LOVE for you to FACTUALLY prove it
please focus on that word FACTUALLY
You have yet to refute anything but thanks for playing :2wave:
There is nothing absurd about it at all.
You have to try and objectify it as absurd because you can't refute it.
Sisters marrying each other. Brothers marrying each other, ect can make the exact same argument gays are making for "marriage". Why? Because Gay "Marriage" trivializes marriage.
Your inability to logically discuss the issue and falling back on emotional arguments only makes those irrefutable facts stronger.
You're also having to fall back on another strawman, which is the argument that marriage is about sex.
That's a false premise. The institution of marriage, the oldest notion of a tradition in human history, as always been about children. Bringing the opposite sexes together in a single union to procreate and continue to existence of the human race. Marriage has never been about what hole you put it in.
1.)Simply irrelevant, judges do not make law, they follow it, make sure the laws are constitutional. Besides...Government is not the master of the people, we are the masters, they are our public and hired servants. We the people are the sovereign rulers.
2.) yeah, those your opinions are they?? ha ha ha...your off the cuff opinions about an my opinion, my opinion based on fact...guess which trumps?
Think this one originally related to gay marriage requiring special rights. If everyone has equal rights now, and we do as I have the same restrictions in place as do all others, cannot marry my brother or mother, sister, cousin or daughter, cannot marry another man, someone too young, cannot marry an animal, cannot marry 12 other people or even two at the same time legally...we all have all the same restrictions and rights at this point... we would have to grant special rights to gay people to do something like let them marry someone of the same sex... isnt that special....
So, you don't even know the court ruling that you assert...wow...
And yet you want to just throw out some obscure reference to a court ruling and expect me to omnisciently [thanks for the compliment anyhow ] know what silliness of which you speak, eh? Cite or don't bother mentioning, please.
first, who ever said anything about US laws exclusively...?? However...
Well, lets see, you can go to any of the 31 states that have laws against same sex marriage... that would be against gay culture would it not? Or are you saying that those enhance gay culture do you? Nice. DOMA, that help gay culture does it?
Then globally.....1871 – Homosexuality is criminalized throughout the German Empire by Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, 1886 – In England, the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885, outlawing sexual relations between men, 1895 – The trial of Oscar Wilde results in his being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 for "gross indecency" and sentenced to two years hard labor in prison, 1903 – In New York on 21 February 1903, New York police conducted the first United States recorded raid on a gay bathhouse, the Ariston Hotel Baths. 26 men were arrested and 12 brought to trial on sodomy charges; 7 men received sentences ranging from 4 to 20 years in prison
So wrong historically as to be embarrassing.
Since you have not quoted anything, always expecting me to either find your silliness someplace or just making it up, who knows... cite if you want a response, cannot bother any longer with your addressing your phantom court cases...
See above many times over....
Yeah, futile, mistakenly thought this was engagement of the thoughtful/straightforward broker styled discussion ...my bad. To remain interesting one must be able to make a point, see a point, see an analogy, not constantly fall back on incessant LMAOs or lols, lacking supporting proof, the only constants being those of the illogical genre, no citation of cases nor material evidence, calling all everyone else says an opinion...
A nicely hot mess of hooey.... ignore IS the astute move, cutting one's losses... do not think there is a single fact or source, much less any logic in the whole post.........
Am reminded of the story of the man hitting himself in the head with a ball-peen hammer... and when approached, asked why he was doing it, he replied, "'cause it feels soooooo good when I stop."
This is where I stop... ciao...
just a good faith suggestion: recognize the spell checker here, could be of great assistance...
1.)Not a threat, just notice, probably my last post in reply.
2.)Here are the facts, rights are most often not absolute.
Right now in my state, for example, a heterosexual man has the exact same rights and restrictions in the law as a homosexual man, no less and no more. That is called equal protection under the law. FACT.
Fact: We both can marry legally. We can both marry under the exact same circumstances [ I can marry a woman who is of age, consenting...so can he ]. Able to prove that wrong?
He cannot marry, in my state, another man. Neither can I. Equal? Exactly equal, yes.
I also cannot marry my father, my mother, my sisters, my brothers, my daughters, my sons or any combination of those, I cannot marry more than one person at a time, etc... neither can he. We have the exact same rights and we have the exact same restrictions. Prove that wrong. FACTS.
Exactly Equal Protection under the law for the both of us, in my state.
Yes yes, double down on the wrong.
Actually, it is absurd. legally recognized gay marriage does not change laws regarding incest or the age of consent. You can have the government recognize gay marriages all over the US and never ever touch any other laws. Like I said, gay marriage does not make criminal sex acts legal. If you want to go the slippery slope argument you should have been there when they were discussing anti-sodomy laws as those involved illegal sex acts. Just like it was technically illegal in some states for married couples to give each other hummers it would also be illegal for a couple with a legal marriage to fornicate if other laws already prohibited it. Marriage in a legal sense does not apply at all to sexual activities. It does not make them legal or illegal. It is only about a contract. You are confusing religious marriage and sex law with legal marriage contracts.
You have to pretend like you have an argument because if you don't then you would see what everyone else does, that this is all a load of prejudiced hot air because you don't even understand the issue has nothing to do with sexual relations.
Actually, since gay people have not been recognized as legitimately married all the damage to the reputation of marriage has been done mainly by straights. Of courtse, conside3ring the institution was originally a financial and political union which was pretty much slavery for the woman I am not terribly surprised. However, to get back to the real point, sisters and brothers sharing a legal contract and taking responsibility for each other in finances, health care, and survival is not terribly rare at all. Since that is all the marriage contract governs then sisters and brothers partnering for the survival of the family is not a terrible idea and is often done after things like tragedies involving the parents, and people think it is heroic and good how siblings stick together and care for each other after tragedy. What you are talking about is incest and sexual activity which the marriage contract neither would make legal or even encourage. Religios marriage beliefs would encourage fornication of married couples, but it is not in the laws as any sort of requirement.
Not really, but you are good at being wrong so don't let me stop you.
Do you have a problem with two people forming a business partnership because they are the same gender, or siblings, or whatever? No, of course you don't, but business partnersghips are pretty similar to the marriage contract. They declare things like responsibility, decision making in case of injury, legal status, involve tax incentives and changes, allow for the establishment of inheritance or ownership transfer upon death, and can convey any number of legal contingencies. They are in place to secure and litigate civil matters regarding assets and legal responsibilities by civil courts. That is exactly what a marriage contract does as per the government. It does not tell you when to have sex, that you have to have children, or even that hummers are illegal. It doesn't even carry any criminal penalties in it. What you are referring to is the punishment for having sexual activity for dangerous or non-consenting sexual activity. That is the part of this that the bible speaks out against, and religion has a problem with. It is not bad in god's eyes to be attracted to another person of your own gender, it is bad to act on it with sexual activity so even god is fine with gays as long as they don't bugger each other according to christians.
Wow, history is not one of your strong suits is it? Not to mention the reality of sex and reproduction. believe me, lots of people know that marriage is not how you reproduce. You really should update yourself on your mid 50's childlike information on where babies come from. I will give you a hint, the stork does not deliver babies to married couples.
1.) again its a smart move to retreat when you cant win
2.) now to dismantle your "facts" of whcih you claimed that we have EQUAL rights.
this will be so easy.
first off there are supreme court justices that disagree and have rule that what you state is NOT equal i think its Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa
next, which is BRILLIANT but also very true and a indirect way to argue is GENDER discrimination which has come up in some cases.
man can marry woman
woman cant marry woman
gender discrimination and NOT equal
bye bye to your "facts"
so you are wrong sir, at best you saying its equal is nothign more than your opinion and its simply disingenuous to even think its equal.
1.) let me get this straight, i remind you that justices disagree with you, then you tell me some states have voted the other way and when i ask how many did with justicies you say it doent matter LMAO
i totally agree, your point did NOT matter :LMAO: you owned yourself again
1b.) i didnt state my opinion, wrong again, i pointed out that fact that you posted opinion and nothing else. This point fails.
2.) we dont have equal rights, so again this point fails cause its based off a false premise. THis point fails.
2a.) another lie, why do you lie so much, nobody falls for it, it hasnt worked yet so why do you think it will work now. This point fails
4.) holy cow could you be anymore dishonest. You said it was illegal to be homosexual then you said gay culture is illegal. You said thats they way it was in the past. SO i asked you to prove it and sight the laws and you sight the fact we dont have equal rights and gays cant marry?????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry that doesnt make homsexuality of gay culture illegal
next you qoue a law in england that is meaningless to me because i did bring up the US ans have been doing so
after that you quote a 1950 SODOMY law . . . . . SODOMY
NEWS flash, sodomy is also heterosexual its anal or oral sex WOW more self ownage you just did to yourself
you lose again, this point fails
5.) facts already proved you wrong, denial wont help you. this point fails
6.) please stop with the lying and nonsense i have mentioned them earlier in this thread or in others, knock it off LOL. This point fails
7.) this point failed dude, deflecting wont change it. Your analogy was a complete bust. This point failed
your analogy failed it takes rights away implying anything else is dishonest
again i accept your submission, facts easily defeat those that are dishonest and you bailing out when every argument you brought up got destroyed and instead trying failed insults shows how desperate and how made you lost.
Its ok, lick your wounds and come back when you have ONE single point or facts that stands.
thanks for playing, you lose. do you REALLY want links to the rullings again because i will GLADLY provide them. I believe Connecticut, Massachusetts and Iowa are the 3. the others i think were were popular vote or legislative vote
1.)Sigh... State Supreme Court Justices are not gods, they are not our supreme rulers... and are often flat out wrong [ these three being cases in point]... but fortunately just in their own states...
2.)3 states, 47 to go huh? But you see, you've stirred us up now tho, we let it go before, now we are awake to the threat.
3.)Gender discrimination huh? Which gender is being discriminated against again? Women? Women can't marry women, huh. But men can't marry men, either. Both opposites can marry each other, though. Wow, exactly the same for both genders ... what's that called again...oh yeah, Equal. Exactly equal protection under the law.
Blah blah blah, LMAO, lol, LMAO again, your opinion, ha ha ha ha, rinse and repeat as many times as unnecessary....
Delusions being free.
So, yes, all that and more if it makes you feel better.
Myself, I am here searching for challenges, learning experiences...truth... ciao.
We are finally in agreement...
Blah blah blah, LMAO, lol, LMAO again, your opinion, ha ha ha ha, rinse and repeat as many times as unnecessary....
Delusions being free.
So, yes, all that and more if it makes you feel better.
Myself, I am here searching for challenges, learning experiences...truth... ciao.
I don't think you are here for truth. I think you are here to proselytize via subterfuge.
It is not absurd. What part is it that incest laws have to do with procreation do you not understand? Incest laws are put into place to prevent inbreeding. There is no procreation with gay sex.
Projection noted. All of your responses are emotional arguments. Not rational arguments.
Why do you open every response with a strawman.
There has been no damage to marriage as an institution.
Individual marriages fail for a variety of reasons, mainly because of human nature.
You're also lying and making stuff up. Marriage has always been about children.
There was never anything political about it until Liberals got their filthy hands on it and are now trying to trivialize it by changing the definition as it has been known since the beginning of human existence.
Sisters marrying sisters and brothers marrying brothers is the exact same concept as gay marriage. Both wouldn't be real marriage. They are a sham. Pretend marriages.
Really. You try and setup every response with a laughable strawman. When you can't refute facts you call people bigots. It's comical and embarrassing.
Again, you are reduced to trivializing marriage because you don't have a logical argument why we need to change the definition of marriage from man + woman to man + ? or woman + ?. Every example you cite can be made for any conceivable combination consenting adults wish to make and call "Marriage".
Nonsensical gibberish and dodge noted. The definition of marriage has always been man + woman. It has never been man + ? or woman + ?.
What part of marriage laws have nothing to do with procreation don't you get? You are not required to procreate when married, and you are not restricted from procreation until you get married. There is no rules about procreation included in the government marriage contract. Oh, and gay people are mostly perfectly capable of procreating, and many even chose to. Some even by natural sex.
lack of retort noted. Your argument does nothing to rebut mine and is therefor invalid. See, i can do it too.
I see, you think a strawman is a good argument that you have no rebuttal to. Yes, i guess in that case i do open up most of my arguments to you with a strawman.
Oh yeah, high divorce rates, and a general change in the family unit has certainly not happened in the past 100 years because of straights changing.
Maybe we shouldn't be letting straight people get married if they cannot respect their commitments?
No, that is the romanticized modern version of it, but marriage has mainly been a financial and political power tool.
OMG that is so awesomely ignorant and stupid i have actually lowered my opinion of you. Seriously, the history of marriage shows that it was often for the joining of families for economic and political power. I am pretty sure that humans started off screwing like animals and not giving too much care to marriage and partnerships. Humans are not naturally a monogamous creature. We did not come into existence with the rules of marriage tattooed to our hides by god. Marriage is a man made creation and therefor we govern it. But if i am wrong feel free to prove the existence of god and then show us god's declaration of the rules of marriage and prove to us that he wrote them. I'll wait.
Well then sisters marrying brothers is the same concept as straight marriage. If you can remove incest from straight marriages then you can remove it from gay marriages also. Oh, and just to use your own silliness against you, since gay relationships do not lead to natural offspring as you said it is impossible for same gender siblings to breed with each other and therefor the incest argument goes completely out of the window because they cannot combine their genetic material and risk defective children. You are failing on so many levels.
ll you what, when you post a fact i will refute it. Since that has never happened i think i will just stick to knocking the crap out of your emotional and rational BS.
Just pointing out that marriage in the governmental sense is a civil contract of partnership between two people which has no bearing on religion, god, or even the sexual laws of the state. You seemed to be very confused and wrong about what marriage actually is, and I really was just trying to help explain it to you. But feel free not to learn and to keep spouting crazy BS like marriage has been around since the beginning of human existence. I am sure that will help your reputation out greatly.
Considering you are unaware of arranged marriages and that you think marriage law has been around since the beginning of human existence and has always been the same i am pretty sure you are not capable of telling us what marriage has always been. but don't let your overwhelming and very obvious ignorance on the subject stop you from helping me out.
I don't think you are here for truth. I think you are here to proselytize via subterfuge.
We have not progressed as a society by promoting wild unproven [except proven wrong], methods that have never worked in the past. You see, we want this country to stay strong and vibrant...we have a history to show how that occurred... you want what you want no matter what... is that not selfish?
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?