- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,834
- Reaction score
- 53,617
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Horse****.
Horse****.Nope. I have made no judgement call on whether homosexuality is wrong or right.
Usage of words changes. If you think arguing definitions is a strong argument against individual freedom, I don't know what to tell you.
Oil is oil. Vinegar is vinegar. Mixing oil and oil results in something called "oil". Mixing vinegar and vinegar produces something called "vinegar". Only by combining the oil with the vinegar do you get mayonnaise and even though the oil might feel all butt-hurt because it doesn't want to be mixed with vinegar but still wants to be "mayonnaise", the oil will just have to get over it because that's not how it works.
I agree with you that no only do definitions of words change, but society changes. And when society changes to the point where it wants to promote homosexual unions, it will create some way to subsidize and sanction them. The society in my state doesn't feel it's in the state's interest to sanction and subsidize homosexual unions. You may enter into a homosexual union at will with no objection from the state. You just can't force the state to sanction it.
I agree with you that no only do definitions of words change, but society changes. And when society changes to the point where it wants to promote homosexual unions, it will create some way to subsidize and sanction them. The society in my state doesn't feel it's in the state's interest to sanction and subsidize homosexual unions. You may enter into a homosexual union at will with no objection from the state. You just can't force the state to sanction it.
Horse****.
The 14th amendment can, on equal protection grounds. Gender is a protected classification, subject to equal protection challenges. You refuse to attempt to even meet the test.
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".
But you felt that you had to deny condemning it. Wonder why.Nope. I have made no judgement call on whether homosexuality is wrong or right.
What is the false premise? The simple question is how is your life or marriage affected by gay marriage?Why do you ask questions with a false premise like that?
Nope there is not such thing."We the people" are the authority on that.
No, you made excuses.I've answered it numerous times. I just answered it again.
That is a load of BS and yes pun intended.No it is not. I would not write a law that requires anyone to swear they aren't homosexual before being allowed to marry.
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".
That's because it's not about gender. It doesn't have to "meet the test".
This hasn't got anything to do with how I view homosexuality. It has to do with how I see marriage and what marriage actually is. Love and commitment are one thing - marriage is another thing. They're not even necessarily related and people can have all the love and commitment they want without being married. And some marriages are entered into without love and maybe not even commitment nor is marriage actually a guarantee of either love or commitment. The fact that marriage is an institution comprised of one consenting member of each sex does not keep homosexuals from living together and loving together in a committed relationship if that's what they want to do. It just means that they aren't husband and wife, which wouldn't make sense, anyway.
And this is why your side has been losing. You fundamentally reduce marriage to the genitals of the couple. I am still trying to sort out why you folks feel it is the State's business to enforce traditional gender norms. When pressed on it, traditional marriage supporters tend to use vague spiritual and religious terminology to argue inherent differences between the sexes that necessitates a complementary union. However, imposing a particular religious view and denying rights to couples on the basis of just their sex does not serve any rational or legitimate purpose which justifies the state enforcing discrimination.
Why not just argue your religious views prohibit you from recognizing same-sex unions as marriage? That seems like a more honest and respectable position than going out of your way to demean gay relationships and argue an absolutist definition of marriage that few Christians even support. Divorcing love and commitment from the definition of marriage does not seem like a position most Christians I know would take. Could you explain how your position on same-sex marriage is not theocratic?
It's not about religion for me. It's about recognizing that male female bonded pairs are what nature intended and I don't see any purpose to sanction unnatural relationships. We could quibble for pages now about what's "natural", but I think it's plenty clear enough.
nature doesn't intend anything mostly if seems to throw things against a wall and some stuff stick's for a while
marriage is are construct and around hear the genitals don't have any requirements other then you wanting a full set
but treating peapole equally under the law is also a local construct about the laws that we make up
also both homosexuality and hetero sexuality are natural deal with it
also nature is not good or evil desirable or undesirable deal with it
All nature seems stuck on this whole gender role thing. In nature the only bonded pairs that mate for life and raise offspring are pairs that consist of one male joined with one female. That's one of those things that "stuck" against the wall.
except for with humans at the very least know same sex pars in animals will raise young some times
since marriage doesn't require you to stay together for life or to have kids or to be able to have kids and gay couples do raise kids some times and do stay together for life some times and the kids are r related to 1 of the parent some times( just like with hetero sexual marriages )
why no gay marriage?
Because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. I thought we covered that already.
now lets see
mar-riage
[mar-ij] Spell Syllables
Examples
Word Origin
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
ok now
ox-y-mo-ron
[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Spell Syllables
Examples
Word Origin
noun, plural oxymora
[ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] (Show IPA), oxymorons. Rhetoric
1.
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”.
ok then
well it seems same sex marriage is not a contradiction to the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities
Because homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. I thought we covered that already.
You have a right to your opinion no matter how ridiculous it is. Cheers.
Demonstrably false in 35 states.
iv got another one same sex 2 gender marriage
I am the moron king! :mrgreen:
....aww shoot
Um...what?
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?