"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. If they want to form legally binding partnerships and have the same rights as married couples, that's fine, just don't call it marriage.UT_Wrestler
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. If they want to form legally binding partnerships and have the same rights as married couples, that's fine, just don't call it marriage.UT_Wrestler
It's also only for people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh whoops, lol, we'll just ignore that one because that's not convenient for us hypocritical straight guys, amirite?
I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withWhether or not it is a strawman argument can depend on if you base your opinion on religion.
They know they're one Jessica Alba away from turning to the other side.
Teenaged
Like I said homosexual people will most likely not frown on the minorities in the future (the heterosexuals) so they wouldnt see something like that as a threat. It's just as likely that homosexuality dies out as it does prosper.
[QUOTE="rockerbikie"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. If they want to form legally binding partnerships and have the same rights as married couples, that's fine, just don't call it marriage.no_more_fayth
I agree with him.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose.
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Not true.
They shouldn't have to change the word.
All I'm saying is that it isn't a marriage unless it's a man and woman. I have no problem with having tax exemptions, shared finances, adoption rights, etc
[QUOTE="rockerbikie"] I agree with him.UT_Wrestler
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose.
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Not true.
They shouldn't have to change the word.
All I'm saying is that it isn't a marriage unless it's a man and woman. I have no problem with having tax exemptions, shared finances, adoption rights, etc
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. If they want to form legally binding partnerships and have the same rights as married couples, that's fine, just don't call it marriage.toast_burner
Why should it only be between a man and woman? Because that's what a marriage is. As I've said before, I have no problems with gays having the same legal rights as far as a civil union, but calling two gays uniting a marriage is like calling a flower a tree.
It's also only for people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh whoops, lol, we'll just ignore that one because that's not convenient for us hypocritical straight guys, amirite?
I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withWhether or not it is a strawman argument can depend on if you base your opinion on religion. I'm going by the dictionary definition of marriage, you guys are pulling straws out of nowhere.
They know they're one Jessica Alba away from turning to the other side.
SolidSnake35
Like I said homosexual people will most likely not frown on the minorities in the future (the heterosexuals) so they wouldnt see something like that as a threat. It's just as likely that homosexuality dies out as it does prosper. We'll see.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withUT_Wrestler
Whether or not it is a strawman argument can depend on if you base your opinion on religion. I'm going by the dictionary definition of marriage, you guys are pulling straws out of nowhere.The dictionary function is descriptive only.
That means it simply describes the way people use words. But words' meanings change all the time.
[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withUT_Wrestler
Whether or not it is a strawman argument can depend on if you base your opinion on religion. I'm going by the dictionary definition of marriage, you guys are pulling straws out of nowhere. It depends on what dictionary your using. lots of countries have gay marriage. words can change meaning
and why would it matter to you if gays could get "married" anyway?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]"Marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. If they want to form legally binding partnerships and have the same rights as married couples, that's fine, just don't call it marriage.UT_Wrestler
It's also only for people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh whoops, lol, we'll just ignore that one because that's not convenient for us hypocritical straight guys, amirite?
I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin with
So you agree that if someone were to have sex before marriage they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And if they were to have been married once and then divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry again? The arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous it wouldn't be worth arguing with people over it in the first place if it wasn't such an important issue. You didn't even provide an argument, you just said that marriage is between men and women, and that's final. By what authority? Your own? The church? I don't think so somehow. What the hell are you calling straw man for anyway? You don't even have an argument to reply to, I was just pointing out a common contradiction.
It's also only for people who don't have sex before marriage. Oh whoops, lol, we'll just ignore that one because that's not convenient for us hypocritical straight guys, amirite?
I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin with
So you agree that if someone were to have sex before marriage they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And if they were to have been married once and then divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry again? The arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous it wouldn't be worth arguing with people over it in the first place if it wasn't such an important issue. You didn't even provide an argument, you just said that marriage is between men and women, and that's final. By what authority? Your own? The church? I don't think so somehow. What the hell are you calling straw man for anyway? You don't even have an argument to reply to, I was just pointing out a common contradiction.
Still pulling straws out of nowhere. Nowhere did I say anything about premarital sex, nor divorce, and the "authority" would be the common definition of what a "marriage" is. There is no "contradiction" because you are putting words into my argument that never existed to begin with.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Whether or not it is a strawman argument can depend on if you base your opinion on religion.
I'm going by the dictionary definition of marriage, you guys are pulling straws out of nowhere. It depends on what dictionary your using. lots of countries have gay marriage. words can change meaning
and why would it matter to you if gays could get "married" anyway?
Quick 2nd grade grammar lesson; the correct word is "you're". I don't care if they have a union, which you all seem to conveniently ignore, it just isn't a "marriage".
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withUT_Wrestler
So you agree that if someone were to have sex before marriage they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And if they were to have been married once and then divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry again? The arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous it wouldn't be worth arguing with people over it in the first place if it wasn't such an important issue. You didn't even provide an argument, you just said that marriage is between men and women, and that's final. By what authority? Your own? The church? I don't think so somehow. What the hell are you calling straw man for anyway? You don't even have an argument to reply to, I was just pointing out a common contradiction.
Still pulling straws out of nowhere. Nowhere did I say anything about premarital sex, nor divorce, and the "authority" would be the common definition of what a "marriage" is. There is no "contradiction" because you are putting words into my argument that never existed to begin with. what argument? all you've said so far is "because thats what it is" but have gave no reason as of why thats what it should be.
So you agree that if someone were to have sex before marriage they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And if they were to have been married once and then divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry again? The arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous it wouldn't be worth arguing with people over it in the first place if it wasn't such an important issue. You didn't even provide an argument, you just said that marriage is between men and women, and that's final. By what authority? Your own? The church? I don't think so somehow. What the hell are you calling straw man for anyway? You don't even have an argument to reply to, I was just pointing out a common contradiction.
toast_burner
Still pulling straws out of nowhere. Nowhere did I say anything about premarital sex, nor divorce, and the "authority" would be the common definition of what a "marriage" is. There is no "contradiction" because you are putting words into my argument that never existed to begin with. what argument? all you've said so far is "because thats what it is" but have gave no reason as of why thats what it should be. Ignoring the only point made, which is that it should be called a civil union rather than a marriage.
[QUOTE="toast_burner"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Still pulling straws out of nowhere. Nowhere did I say anything about premarital sex, nor divorce, and the "authority" would be the common definition of what a "marriage" is. There is no "contradiction" because you are putting words into my argument that never existed to begin with.UT_Wrestler
what argument? all you've said so far is "because thats what it is" but have gave no reason as of why thats what it should be. Ignoring the only point made, which is that it should be called a civil union rather than a marriage.why? how would it affect you in any way for it to be called marriage?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I love the straw man arguments; rebuttling against a point that never existed in the argument to begin withUT_Wrestler
So you agree that if someone were to have sex before marriage they shouldn't be allowed to marry? And if they were to have been married once and then divorce they shouldn't be allowed to marry again? The arguments against gay marriage are so ridiculous it wouldn't be worth arguing with people over it in the first place if it wasn't such an important issue. You didn't even provide an argument, you just said that marriage is between men and women, and that's final. By what authority? Your own? The church? I don't think so somehow. What the hell are you calling straw man for anyway? You don't even have an argument to reply to, I was just pointing out a common contradiction.
Still pulling straws out of nowhere. Nowhere did I say anything about premarital sex, nor divorce, and the "authority" would be the common definition of what a "marriage" is. There is no "contradiction" because you are putting words into my argument that never existed to begin with.
Why do people on this forum seem to think "straw man" is a reasonable answer to a question? Especially as a way of dodging serious questions they can't answer, ironically. Let me put this as simply as possible. I'm asking you 2 questions here, depending on your answer to both it entirely effects your whole argument. If you can't answer either of those questions then your whole argument falls apart. This is not some opinion on a crappy rock band, this is a serious issue that requires more than just an opinion, it requires actual justification. If you can't provide it then I suggest you re think your argument.
It's "affect", not "effect", and it's "re-think", not "re think". I'm not going to argue any more because these gramatical errors are hurting my eyes.UT_Wrestler
It's "affect", not "effect", and it's "re-think", not "re think". I'm not going to argue any more because these gramatical errors are hurting my eyes.UT_Wrestler
It's "affect", not "effect", and it's "re-think", not "re think". I'm not going to argue any more because these gramatical errors are hurting my eyes.UT_Wrestler
Rofl, pretty funny. No but seriously, are you going to answer my questions?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I already answered it, but you seem quite talented at convincing yourself that I haven't.toast_burner
no you haven't. if you have then your post probably got deleted. Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I already answered it, but you seem quite talented at convincing yourself that I haven't.UT_Wrestler
no you haven't. if you have then your post probably got deleted. Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question. you haven't given a answer. please just tell us why you object letting gays getting married without attaching a demeaning name to it (yes i do find the term civil union to be demeaning)
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]I already answered it, but you seem quite talented at convincing yourself that I haven't.UT_Wrestler
no you haven't. if you have then your post probably got deleted. Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.
So what was your answer then? It seems to have disappeared from the page. In fact I'm having doubts it existed in the first place. Is this like some sort of brainwashing technique where you suggest there's something there when there really isn't?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] no you haven't. if you have then your post probably got deleted.
Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question. you haven't given a answer. please just tell us why you object letting gays getting married without attaching a demeaning name to it (yes i do find the term civil union to be demeaning) I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] no you haven't. if you have then your post probably got deleted.
Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.
So what was your answer then? It seems to have disappeared from the page. In fact I'm having doubts it existed in the first place. Is this like some sort of brainwashing technique where you suggest there's something there when there really isn't?
You mean like how you brought up premarital sex and divorce and said they were my views when I never mentioned anything of the sort?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.UT_Wrestler
you haven't given a answer. please just tell us why you object letting gays getting married without attaching a demeaning name to it (yes i do find the term civil union to be demeaning) I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.So why do you think that the definition shouldn't be changed? what harm could come from changing it?
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.UT_Wrestler
you haven't given a answer. please just tell us why you object letting gays getting married without attaching a demeaning name to it (yes i do find the term civil union to be demeaning) I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.But he didnt ask you what you believe marriage is.
He asked you why you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.
So far the only reason you gave is the dictionary definition, which I already refuted.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] Just because some of you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer the question.UT_Wrestler
So what was your answer then? It seems to have disappeared from the page. In fact I'm having doubts it existed in the first place. Is this like some sort of brainwashing technique where you suggest there's something there when there really isn't?
You mean like how you brought up premarital sex and divorce and said they were my views when I never mentioned anything of the sort?
Again, I didn't see the part where I said that, I think your magic trick must have failed on you. I never said they were your views, I questioned what your views on these things were. That's not the same thing. Though judging by your inability to answer my questions I can take a good guess at what they actually are.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="toast_burner"] you haven't given a answer. please just tell us why you object letting gays getting married without attaching a demeaning name to it (yes i do find the term civil union to be demeaning)
I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.So why do you think that the definition shouldn't be changed? what harm could come from changing it? Why don't we just call a flower a tree? Why don't we just start calling a car a bicycle? Why don't start calling a fuel pump a beverage dispensor? Because that's not what it is and not what it should be called.
I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.UT_Wrestler
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.HoolaHoopMan
Ah, seperate but equal I see.
Men and women are equal but have different rights.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.UT_Wrestler
So why do you think that the definition shouldn't be changed? what harm could come from changing it? We are changing the meaning from "the union of a man and woman" to "the union of a couple" its not exactly a huge leap. and as I said before, quite alot of countrys use the second definition. Why don't we just call a flower a tree? Why don't we just start calling a car a bicycle? Why don't start calling a fuel pump a beverage dispensor? Because that's not what it is and not what it should be called.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.HoolaHoopMan
Ah, seperate but equal I see.
If you're referring to the civil rights movement, you're way off base. I believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight couples, including the ability to adopt children.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.SolidSnake35
Ah, seperate but equal I see.
Men and women are equal but have different rights. What fundamental rights differ between men and women?
I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a womanUT_Wrestler
And is there any valid reason why we should continue to define marriage in this exact way? Exactly what do we lose if you change "a man and a woman" to "two consenting adults"?
It's not like the whole planet's going to explode if you so much as alter a few words here and there so that people can be happier and so that your marriage laws won't be nearly as silly. Dictionaries can and have altered the meanings/added new definitions of words - for the simple reason that languages are a product of the culture that uses them, and as cultures evolve, so do those languages. Last time I checked, humanity's still around and kicking.
Men and women are equal but have different rights. What fundamental rights differ between men and women? Women don't have to sign up for selective service
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a womanBarbariser
And is there any valid reason why we should continue to define marriage in this exact way? Exactly what do we lose if you change "a man and a woman" to "two consenting adults"?
It's not like the whole planet's going to explode if you so much as alter a few words here and there so that people can be happier and so that your marriage laws won't be nearly as silly.
I'm glad you're at least acknowledging that I answered the question. I know that some of you may not like the answer and that's fine.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.UT_Wrestler
So why do you think that the definition shouldn't be changed? what harm could come from changing it? Why don't we just call a flower a tree? Why don't we just start calling a car a bicycle? Why don't start calling a fuel pump a beverage dispensor? Because that's not what it is and not what it should be called.
Because these items are defined in the dictionary so that they are not the same. Marriage however is defined differently depending on who you ask, and for the most part definitions of marriage don't actually mention sex. For example, "the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)". Sex does not come in to the definition, so I ask again, by who's authority do you define what marriage is? And I'll give you a clue, it's not the dictionary.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a woman, plain and simple answer; you may not like the answer but you can't seriously keep telling me that I never answered the question, I'm just restating it.UT_Wrestler
Ah, seperate but equal I see.
If you're referring to the civil rights movement, you're way off base. I believe that gay couples should have all the same rights as straight couples, including the ability to adopt children. Except homosexuals would have their version of marriage and heterosexuals theirs. If both were the same on paper then I would say your argument based on the word marriage is pretty dumb. The religious don't have a monopoly on the word marriage.
[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] I object to it being called a marriage because it isn't a man and a womanUT_Wrestler
And is there any valid reason why we should continue to define marriage in this exact way? Exactly what do we lose if you change "a man and a woman" to "two consenting adults"?
It's not like the whole planet's going to explode if you so much as alter a few words here and there so that people can be happier and so that your marriage laws won't be nearly as silly.
I'm glad you're at least acknowledging that I answered the question. I know that some of you may not like the answer and that's fine.
Yeah, can you at least answer mine? And while you're at it, how would you apply the definition of marriage to transsexuals?
Also, (this is relevant) do you believe that abortion is murder?
Log in to comment