As long as they don't force their lifestyle on me, I won't mess with theirs.
That's how I see it. It's not like they're hurting anyone.
Do you believe same sex marriage is okay?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Lans, as it is obvious you have the definition of red herring completely off. :| In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate. You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] If a person's going to do nothing but present logical fallacies as arguments -- the debate's already over. ;)Lansdowne5
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Lans, as it is obvious you have the definition of red herring completely off. :|In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate. You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda. The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage.D3nnyCrane
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Lans, as it is obvious you have the definition of red herring completely off. :| In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate.Um no he just interpreted your words.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] If a person's going to do nothing but present logical fallacies as arguments -- the debate's already over. ;)Lansdowne5
Often at times, fundamentalist views hold implications which are often ignored by fundamentalists. D3nny made those implications more obvious for everyone to see.
As for the red herring, well the subject didnt change. The relevance was not lost.
[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] Wait. What? Which logical fallacy are you even talking about.....?Lansdowne5The logical fallacy that God even enters into a discussion about marriage. Or that He even exists. Eh? I mean the name of the logical fallacy......It doesnt have to have a formal name in order for it to be a logical fallacy.... >_______________>
In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate.Um no he just interpreted your words.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Lans, as it is obvious you have the definition of red herring completely off. :|
Teenaged
Often at times, fundamentalist views hold implications which are often ignored by fundamentalists. D3nny made those implications more obvious for everyone to see.
As for the red herring, well the subject didnt change. The relevance was not lost.
I said what I meant and what I meant was what I said. Don't look for things in my posts which aren't there.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] You're right - this debate got stupid when you said God had some sort of relevance to the argument. Least you can admit it I guess.LOLTRAINWhich is a logical fallacy why? God was the person who put marriage in place. So I'd have thought he's kinda relevant. Did he personally send you PM and personally told you that? >_>A luminous one. With sparkling letters and with an automated .mp3 file playing chanting directly from heaven once the PM is opened.
You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda. The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage. And again, it only contravenes the Fundamentalist Christian view of marriage, which, even amongst it's own, meets opposing views. And I'm not saying that idly - I was raised one. And like I said - I'll fall on my knees and recant when God stands up when a Padre says "speak now". Otherwise, I'm going to love my neighbour, gay or straight, the way I was taught.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate.Lansdowne5
Eh? I mean the name of the logical fallacy......It doesnt have to have a formal name in order for it to be a logical fallacy.... >_______________> If it's a logical fallacy, I assure you it will have a formal name.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] The logical fallacy that God even enters into a discussion about marriage. Or that He even exists.Teenaged
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Um no he just interpreted your words.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate.Lansdowne5
Often at times, fundamentalist views hold implications which are often ignored by fundamentalists. D3nny made those implications more obvious for everyone to see.
As for the red herring, well the subject didnt change. The relevance was not lost.
I said what I meant and what I meant was what I said. Don't look for things in my posts which aren't there.You misunderstood me. It's not of my interest to advocate that you meant and believed in what D3nny said. The dogmas you support though do bear such implications whether you see it or not.You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda. The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage. Lol it has been mentioned around 5 times that there isn't only one kind of marriage.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] In two posts, I observed the straw man fallacy and then subsequently the red herring fallacy being committed. The first was in presenting a position and arguing against it which I did not hold in order to make it look as though my position was unfounded, which it was not, the second was in writing a post which had no relevance to the topic and was used in a deliberate attempt to drive us off the subject of the debate.Lansdowne5
Did he personally send you PM and personally told you that? >_>A luminous one. With sparkling letters and with an automated .mp3 file playing chanting directly from heaven once the PM is opened. Hahaha! lol wut![QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] Which is a logical fallacy why? God was the person who put marriage in place. So I'd have thought he's kinda relevant.Teenaged
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt have to have a formal name in order for it to be a logical fallacy.... >_______________> If it's a logical fallacy, I assure you it will have a formal name.No Lans.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] Eh? I mean the name of the logical fallacy......Lansdowne5
One doesnt have to know how its called in order to claim that he saw one. ?_?
Geee.
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]A luminous one. With sparkling letters and with an automated .mp3 file playing chanting directly from heaven once the PM is opened. Hahaha! lol wut! EDIT: Its not an mp3 file. Its direct streaming broadcast.[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"] Did he personally send you PM and personally told you that? >_>LOLTRAIN
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage. And again, it only contravenes the Fundamentalist Christian view of marriage, which, even amongst it's own, meets opposing views. And I'm not saying that idly - I was raised one. And like I said - I'll fall on my knees and recant when God stands up when a Padre says "speak now". Otherwise, I'm going to love my neighbour, gay or straight, the way I was taught. You just did it again. I have never suggested that we do not love our neighbour if they are a homosexual. That is, after all, the second greatest commandment -- to love others (others meaning everyone) as you would love yourself. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda.D3nnyCrane
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So, how is gay marriage against the contitution?
I never said that -- I said there is nothing in the constitution that says gay marriage should be allowed.I edited my post.Being absent from the contitution doesnt mean its against the contitution, like I said before.
Why is it then important that it is absent from the contitution?
Also, constitutions DO get revised.
If it is absent from the constitution that means that nobody can automatically say whether it is legally right or wrong, without the involvment of some democratic processes.[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]
If they wanna get married, live happily for a few years, divorce and lose half there worldly pocession.. I say let them.
And lol to the guy in the first page (30 posts a page0 who compared it to the likes of Pedophillia, incest and human-animal relations. Stupidity is a funny thing. :lol
peter1191
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?If it's a logical fallacy, I assure you it will have a formal name.No Lans.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]It doesnt have to have a formal name in order for it to be a logical fallacy.... >_______________>
Teenaged
One doesnt have to know how its called in order to claim that he saw one. ?_?
Geee.
You can label anything as a logical fallacy. But unless it's cIassified as one or someone proves it to be one (neither of which has happened in this thread) I have no reason to accept it as anything more than a baseless assertion.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"] The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage.And again, it only contravenes the Fundamentalist Christian view of marriage, which, even amongst it's own, meets opposing views. And I'm not saying that idly - I was raised one. And like I said - I'll fall on my knees and recant when God stands up when a Padre says "speak now". Otherwise, I'm going to love my neighbour, gay or straight, the way I was taught. You just did it again. I have never suggested that we do not love our neighbour if they are a homosexual. That is, after all, the second greatest commandment -- to love others (others meaning everyone) as you would love yourself. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.Lansdowne5
"I love you all equally. Just, you 2 can't get married because you're gay Nothing personal - I love you, even if you are abominations in the Lord's eyes". Yup, I am confused.
Ok first define "natural".[QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
Teenaged
We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.
We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.
[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]The observations were valid. Go back and read your posts and you'll see that. And, as I have said right from the very beginning of this discussion, men cannot get married to men because to do so contradicts the very nature of marriage. Lol it has been mentioned around 5 times that there isn't only one kind of marriage. And we come full circle to the other point which I made at the beginning -- the TC should have been it clear what he meant by marriage.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] You said gays can't get married. As clear as that. Stop trying to shift the goalposts and admit your agenda.LOLTRAIN
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]I edited my post.[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I never said that -- I said there is nothing in the constitution that says gay marriage should be allowed.MetalGear_Ninty
Being absent from the contitution doesnt mean its against the contitution, like I said before.
Why is it then important that it is absent from the contitution?
Also, constitutions DO get revised.
If it is absent from the constitution that means that nobody can automatically say whether it is legally right or wrong, without the involvment of some democratic processes.This is going back to the ideal definition of democracy that you are using. I think it has been demonstrated that democracy has boundaries.Also like I said, constitutions DO get revised. And that shows how we CAN have a say on whether something is legally right or wrong even if its absent from the constitution. Thats how we will see to it that the constitution does mention that which is missing and in the way it should. By what criteria? Logical criteria. Not the criterion of the majority. Because democracy has boundaries.
Ok first define "natural".[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
peter1191
We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.
We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.
Interesting reasoning. I pretty much agree.Ok first define "natural".[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
peter1191
We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.
We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.
But nature changes! :o It evolves and sometimes contradicts itself![QUOTE="peter1191"][QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]
If they wanna get married, live happily for a few years, divorce and lose half there worldly pocession.. I say let them.
And lol to the guy in the first page (30 posts a page0 who compared it to the likes of Pedophillia, incest and human-animal relations. Stupidity is a funny thing. :lol
RiseAgainst12
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.
You just did it again. I have never suggested that we do not love our neighbour if they are a homosexual. That is, after all, the second greatest commandment -- to love others (others meaning everyone) as you would love yourself. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] And again, it only contravenes the Fundamentalist Christian view of marriage, which, even amongst it's own, meets opposing views. And I'm not saying that idly - I was raised one. And like I said - I'll fall on my knees and recant when God stands up when a Padre says "speak now". Otherwise, I'm going to love my neighbour, gay or straight, the way I was taught.D3nnyCrane
"I love you all equally. Just, you 2 can't get married because you're gay Nothing personal - I love you, even if you are abominations in the Lord's eyes". Yup, I am confused.
Of course it's not anything personal! No more than it is if a 10 year old wants to drive a car but is told he cannot because he is not yet of legal age.As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
peter1191
What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.
I'm... I'm almost sure you compared bestiality to homosexuality... I don't wanna believe it... But I'm sure you did...Ok first define "natural".[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
peter1191
We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.
We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.
No, "natural", like any other word can have different meanings. Different criteria by which it is defined. In the end all definitions are correct in their own respect so I have to know which one you are using.Is it the one: "what is observed in nature"? You know the answer to that one and its valid.
I guess you are using one which is defined merely by some indications you have observed and you concluded that they are the ones that strictly define it.
You must get specific before I can answer.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are throwing out the word "rights". The Constitution is where they are defined here. And marriage for anyone is NOT a right. It's either a religious event or a societal event. Thus in the second case society can decide.....which is how democracy works. You're having a laugh, mate. Marriage is an absolute right, in that we are free to enter into it as we see fit. The wedding itself, sure, it's a religious/social event, but the entering of a permanent union between two loving (or non-loving, this is the 21st Century after all) is a right that is open to all. Well, except gays apparently. Seems even the 21st century is not enough of a catalyst to promote open mindedness.Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
[Just because something is not stated specifically as a right in the constitution doesnt mean that depriving a specific group of people does not break some of their rights.
On the other hand I never made an argument from the constitution did I?
...................
D3nnyCrane
And we come full circle to the other point which I made at the beginning -- the TC should have been it clear what he meant by marriage.Lansdowne5Lans, you are ignoring me again. I responded to your response that Christianity stems from Judaism. I would like an answer.
I will quote myself to bring my post to your attention in case you missed it.
Was Judaism the first religion on earth?Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?Teenaged
You just did it again. I have never suggested that we do not love our neighbour if they are a homosexual. That is, after all, the second greatest commandment -- to love others (others meaning everyone) as you would love yourself. Whether they are gay or straight is irrelevant.[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] And again, it only contravenes the Fundamentalist Christian view of marriage, which, even amongst it's own, meets opposing views. And I'm not saying that idly - I was raised one. And like I said - I'll fall on my knees and recant when God stands up when a Padre says "speak now". Otherwise, I'm going to love my neighbour, gay or straight, the way I was taught.D3nnyCrane
"I love you all equally. Just, you 2 can't get married because you're gay Nothing personal - I love you, even if you are abominations in the Lord's eyes". Yup, I am confused.
Took the words right outta my mouth.
The one thing that completely blows my mind/makes me rage is the "tough guys" that are all like, "hehe, only girls should be able to get married! hehe, because its hot".... then if you ask them if guys should be able to and they say something along the lines of "ew omg nasty, **** shouldn't be able to marry... its so gay which just makes their last statement invalid. And everyone should have come across one of these *** ****s if you ever went to high school.... they're usually the guys that think they can get all the girls but in reality they "couldn't get a girl with a 100$ bill hanging outta their zipper" [quote from BASEketball]. They're also the guys that usually wear the letterman jackets and can't spell their name.... :)
Here it is Lans. Why are you turning this into a religion thread?[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
Was Judaism the first religion on earth?
Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?
Teenaged
You're having a laugh, mate. Marriage is an absolute right, in that we are free to enter into it as we see fit. The wedding itself, sure, it's a religious/social event, but the entering of a permanent union between two loving (or non-loving, this is the 21st Century after all) is a right that is open to all. Well, except gays apparently. Seems even the 21st century is not enough of a catalyst to promote open mindedness.Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either. Haha, mate, believe it or not, there are so many mind bogglingly inane arguments in this thread, I will admit yours is valid. Jesus Christ - the whole time, all I hear is Col. Kurtz "The horror..." speech in my head...[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are throwing out the word "rights". The Constitution is where they are defined here. And marriage for anyone is NOT a right. It's either a religious event or a societal event. Thus in the second case society can decide.....which is how democracy works.
LJS9502_basic
You're having a laugh, mate. Marriage is an absolute right, in that we are free to enter into it as we see fit. The wedding itself, sure, it's a religious/social event, but the entering of a permanent union between two loving (or non-loving, this is the 21st Century after all) is a right that is open to all. Well, except gays apparently. Seems even the 21st century is not enough of a catalyst to promote open mindedness.Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either. Driving is not a right? olol.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You are throwing out the word "rights". The Constitution is where they are defined here. And marriage for anyone is NOT a right. It's either a religious event or a societal event. Thus in the second case society can decide.....which is how democracy works.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either. Haha, mate, believe it or not, there are so many mind bogglingly inane arguments in this thread, I will admit yours is valid. Jesus Christ - the whole time, all I hear is Col. Kurtz "The horror..." speech in my head...I'm not arguing against the idea. Just the idea that it's a right.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] You're having a laugh, mate. Marriage is an absolute right, in that we are free to enter into it as we see fit. The wedding itself, sure, it's a religious/social event, but the entering of a permanent union between two loving (or non-loving, this is the 21st Century after all) is a right that is open to all. Well, except gays apparently. Seems even the 21st century is not enough of a catalyst to promote open mindedness.D3nnyCrane
As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"][QUOTE="peter1191"]
Thanks man. Thanks for that. Because apparently being accepted into Harvard indicates my ignorance and stupidity. Now, I don't really care where anyone goes for college, or what anyone argues for, so long as reasons are used to back up claims. WHy is the arguement that Homosexuality is "unnatural" wrong? Answer the question. Don't call be stupid and walk away. You do yourself a disservice. If your beliefs can be substantiated with more reasons than a simple "we see it in nature all the time!" logic, then I might be inclined to listen. Lets be intelligent. Have I called anyone stupid so far? Why would you say that of me? Holding one view does not make you a fool. It makes you opinionated and substantiated. And in a democratic republic, thats the best you can be.
peter1191
What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.
Incest leads to defective offspring.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Here it is Lans. Why are you turning this into a religion thread? He is not. Marriage is relevant to religion.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
Was Judaism the first religion on earth?
Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Teenaged"]Here it is Lans. Why are you turning this into a religion thread?LJS, I am not turning it into one. He brought God into this thread and made some points that I want to answer to.[QUOTE="Teenaged"]
Was Judaism the first religion on earth?
Did marriage originate from Judaism? Do you have proof that shows that marriage started exclusively from Judaism?
LJS9502_basic
Am I not allowed? :|
[QUOTE="peter1191"]
[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?Teenaged
What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.
Incest leads to defective offspring. Thus defective offsprings should be terminated for they are not natural! :D[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either. Driving is not a right? lol.[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"] You're having a laugh, mate. Marriage is an absolute right, in that we are free to enter into it as we see fit. The wedding itself, sure, it's a religious/social event, but the entering of a permanent union between two loving (or non-loving, this is the 21st Century after all) is a right that is open to all. Well, except gays apparently. Seems even the 21st century is not enough of a catalyst to promote open mindedness.LOLTRAIN
It's a privilege. It's not in the Constitution at all so..... no... not a right. lol
Haha, mate, believe it or not, there are so many mind bogglingly inane arguments in this thread, I will admit yours is valid. Jesus Christ - the whole time, all I hear is Col. Kurtz "The horror..." speech in my head...I'm not arguing against the idea. Just the idea that it's a right. Honestly, man, I just wanna go to bed. But I can't sleep knowing this level of stupidity has a voice in the world I want to bring kids into... You think they'll have Mars colonised within 5 years? Seems a safer bet to bring kids up in...[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="peter1191"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Ok first define "natural".
We must know what you define "natural" as before anyone can deploy a counterargument. Explain the terms you use please.
LOLTRAIN
We all know what natural function is. It is not subjective. A clock is naturally functioning properly if it tells time. Simple. Natural for a human is the uses the body is build for (this includes physcological development since infancy). There is a lot of subjective things out there, like morality, love, even beliefs to an extent, but the human body is not subjective. Biological foundations antedate even marriage. So if marriage cannot even conform to who we are, then what is its purpose? We need a stable enviornment in which two adults can depend on each other, and children are raised in this dependency. Natural. Gay marriage does not allow for this. I have went over the reasons a hundred times already. Read by earlier posts if you want to see what I think.
But nature changes! :o It evolves and sometimes contradicts itself!Very good point! But you forgot one simple fact: nature changes to confirm to fit best the environment in which the organism lies. Now, is there evolution today, with air planes to mix gene pools, medicine to prevent death at the proper time, and so on. Is there evolution today? Probably not, or so minute it is irrelevant. There is no need to say, at this time, or in the last thousands of years, that humans evolved to be homosexual. It makes no sense, andbecause of modern developments, it cannot be feasible in the future.
Guys, I want to make a point here before I go on. I don't hate homosexuals, I hate homosexuality. Although I have not met many homosexuals in line with my views, I have met a few who were intelligent, strong willed, and industrious. Homosexuals are not animals. THey are humans like you and me. But just because this is true does not mean we should accept what they are doing. In fact, the only thing I hate more than homosexuality is those who think its fair to call them"phags" or beat them or ostracise them from jobs and so forth. Lets be fair to all, but lets be true to our beliefs as well. Thats what I think
Driving is not a right? lol.[QUOTE="LOLTRAIN"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not true at all...there are many stipulations as to who can get married. Thus...it's not a right. Driving is not a right either.
McSkurvy
It's a privilege. It's not in the Constitution at all so..... no... not a right. lol
Here we go again! ^.^[QUOTE="peter1191"]
[QUOTE="RiseAgainst12"]As i pointed out you compared gay marriage to the likes of Incest, human animal relations and Pediophillia.. that is a very outlandish claim to compare them and say each is not harmful to anyone else. 1. Incest is harmful to any child born from an incestuous relationship. 2. Human Animal relations have no consentual say from the animal. 3. Pedophillia... LOLWUT? happy now?Teenaged
What if I say that an incestual relationship, or a pedophile with a child, has consent? What if the incestual relationship invovles two fully grown adults? Bestiality, and you are correct in this, is completely irrelvant to these two points. But when we say "love" is everything for marriage, who are we to say a man and his dog are not in love? It sounds disturbing, but thats how gay marriage has become accepted.
Incest leads to defective offspring.But, gay marrige leads to no offspring....and a pedophile need not worry about defective offsprings.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment