blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Feb 24, 2017 22:17:15 GMT
Who cares what you support, you sound like a semi-homosexual bigot with your reasoning. A Union between two people needs to carry the same stipulation and equality. It's the archaic notion and definition of what marriage is supposed to represent that DOES need re-defining. You sound like a brainwashed activist dipsh!t. F^ck you. Make no mistake, your insults don't upset or intimidate me; they simply tire me. People like you are just too stupid to try to deal with. You're brick walls.
Nice to see you made it over to this board @gottaluvafriend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:17:40 GMT
I apologize in advance if I've already responded in this thread. I do care if gays are given the right to marry and am against it only because it would change the definition of "marriage". "Between one man and one woman" is appropriately restrictive and prevents legal challenges defending all kinds of "marriages" which would be detrimental to society. To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. I favor and support legal bonds between gays. What gay people do together is not an issue for me. First, the definition of marriage "between one man and one woman" is only one definition. Another is "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law".Second, there's no evidence that changing the definition of marriage would be detrimental to society. Actually, since the definition obviously has changed and society still exists, there's evidence that changing the definition of marriage is not detrimental to society. And third, slippery slope arguments have been around at least since allowing interracial marriages. This does not make them right. If that's true, if that's a legal definition somewhere, it's necessarily secondary to "between one man and one woman" by definition. See? Try to think before you post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:18:32 GMT
You sound like a brainwashed activist dipsh!t. F^ck you. Make no mistake, your insults don't upset or intimidate me; they simply tire me. People like you are just too stupid to try to deal with. You're brick walls.
Nice to see you made it over to this board @gottaluvafriend .
Thanx, even if you don't really mean it.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:19:33 GMT
Who cares what you support, you sound like a semi-homosexual bigot with your reasoning. A Union between two people needs to carry the same stipulation and equality. It's the archaic notion and definition of what marriage is supposed to represent that DOES need re-defining. You sound like a brainwashed activist dipsh!t. F^ck you. Make no mistake, your insults don't upset or intimidate me; they simply tire me. People like you are just too stupid to try to deal with. You're brick walls. On point.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:22:41 GMT
I apologize in advance if I've already responded in this thread. I do care if gays are given the right to marry and am against it only because it would change the definition of "marriage". "Between one man and one woman" is appropriately restrictive and prevents legal challenges defending all kinds of "marriages" which would be detrimental to society. To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. I favor and support legal bonds between gays. What gay people do together is not an issue for me. First, the definition of marriage "between one man and one woman" is only one definition. Another is "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Second, there's no evidence that changing the definition of marriage would be detrimental to society. Actually, since the definition obviously has changed and society still exists, there's evidence that changing the definition of marriage is not detrimental to society. And third, slippery slope arguments have been around at least since allowing interracial marriages. This does not make slippery slope arguments right. Does it make the other side of the argument right instead?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 24, 2017 22:23:50 GMT
First, the definition of marriage "between one man and one woman" is only one definition. Another is "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law".Second, there's no evidence that changing the definition of marriage would be detrimental to society. Actually, since the definition obviously has changed and society still exists, there's evidence that changing the definition of marriage is not detrimental to society. And third, slippery slope arguments have been around at least since allowing interracial marriages. This does not make them right. If that's true, if that's a legal definition somewhere, it's necessarily secondary to "between one man and one woman" by definition. See? Try to think before you post. Not necessarily. Each country can make up their own legal definition of marriage, and it does not have to contain "between one man and one woman".
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 24, 2017 22:26:48 GMT
First, the definition of marriage "between one man and one woman" is only one definition. Another is "the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law". Second, there's no evidence that changing the definition of marriage would be detrimental to society. Actually, since the definition obviously has changed and society still exists, there's evidence that changing the definition of marriage is not detrimental to society. And third, slippery slope arguments have been around at least since allowing interracial marriages. This does not make slippery slope arguments right. Does it make the other side of the argument right instead?You said this, not me. A slippery slope argument being wrong means that a slippery slope argument is wrong. Nothing more or less.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on Feb 24, 2017 22:27:10 GMT
Thanx, even if you don't really mean it. Oh, look! You've got two more little bigoted homophobic friends for you to play with, blade , j2 and soon it will be three, when that thick dense awhina pokes her nose in. Good for you!
Said the bigot. You are intolerant of Christian beliefs which makes you a hypocrite as well as a bigot.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:27:29 GMT
Surely. I can even comment (modestly) on the material I examined, but I won't. I've seen this game before and I don't play it. If you were really concerned for the truth of things regardless of which truth it might be, then I might bother. I try to avoid worthless pursuits. I read peer-reviewed journals, good in my opinion. What? Bigoted peer-reviewed journals. You are attempting to troll others with you lies and deceit about what you feel is the truth, and when called out and asked to provide some sources, you then claim it is all a game and won't play. If you bring up an argument or point against something, back it up if you want to have some credence. Like I care about your brand of 'credence'. I must agree with @gottaluvafriend when he says you can go F yourself.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:31:16 GMT
Does it make the other side of the argument right instead? You said this, not me. A slippery slope argument being wrong means that a slippery slope argument is wrong. Nothing more or less. Just a question, thanks for the reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:32:11 GMT
What? Bigoted peer-reviewed journals. You are attempting to troll others with you lies and deceit about what you feel is the truth, and when called out and asked to provide some sources, you then claim it is all a game and won't play. If you bring up an argument or point against something, back it up if you want to have some credence. Like I care about your brand of 'credence'. I must agree with @gottaluvafriend when he says you can go F yourself. Block the fool Toasted Cheese.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:36:48 GMT
I apologize in advance if I've already responded in this thread. I do care if gays are given the right to marry and am against it only because it would change the definition of "marriage". "Between one man and one woman" is appropriately restrictive and prevents legal challenges defending all kinds of "marriages" which would be detrimental to society. To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. I favor and support legal bonds between gays. What gay people do together is not an issue for me. Marriage between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS would not allow pedophiles to do anything. Marriage as it stands between a man and a woman allows a pedophile access to the woman's children, if any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:47:23 GMT
I apologize in advance if I've already responded in this thread. I do care if gays are given the right to marry and am against it only because it would change the definition of "marriage". "Between one man and one woman" is appropriately restrictive and prevents legal challenges defending all kinds of "marriages" which would be detrimental to society. To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. I favor and support legal bonds between gays. What gay people do together is not an issue for me. Marriage between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS would not allow pedophiles to do anything. Marriage as it stands between a man and a woman allows a pedophile access to the woman's children, if any. Sorry, not good enough. Lawyers would dismantle that in a heartbeat. And, wtf about giving access to a woman's children? Try again.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:50:13 GMT
Oh, look! You've got two more little bigoted homophobic friends for you to play with, blade , j2 and soon it will be three, when that thick dense awhina pokes her nose in. Good for you!
Said the bigot. You are intolerant of Christian beliefs which makes you a hypocrite as well as a bigot.
There's more of us than there is of them. They keep thinking that by screaming out loud like little girls they'll just push everyone around and men will put up with it indefinitely. Tough.
|
|
j2
Sophomore
@j2
Posts: 628
Likes: 149
|
Post by j2 on Feb 24, 2017 22:53:22 GMT
Like I care about your brand of 'credence'. I must agree with @gottaluvafriend when he says you can go F yourself. Block the fool Toasted Cheese. I think he's 'blocked' himself already -- several times, if you know what I mean.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 22:58:07 GMT
Block the fool Toasted Cheese. I think he's 'blocked' himself already -- several times, if you know what I mean. I've blocked only a couple people here so far. It took me one post from Toasted to block him (or her).
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 24, 2017 23:10:29 GMT
To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. The definition of marriage as being "between one man and one woman" is first of all a western thing and second of all something that just have been around for a few hundred years. In Europe, children were married of at an early age and in ancient rome (or was it Greece?) you could marry someone of your own sex. And in many culture, you can marry several men or women. Why are "our" way the only right way?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 23:16:13 GMT
To change the definition of marriage is to invite legal arguments that anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything, it would give pedophilia and incestuousness and all imaginable arguments legal grounds. The definition of marriage as being "between one man and one woman" is first of all a western thing and second of all something that just have been around for a few hundred years. In Europe, children were married of at an early age and in ancient rome (or was it Greece?) you could marry someone of your own sex. And in many culture, you can marry several men or women. Why are "our" way the only right way? Is the USA not the most successful, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world? Try to argue a little more efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by yezziqa on Feb 24, 2017 23:21:27 GMT
The definition of marriage as being "between one man and one woman" is first of all a western thing and second of all something that just have been around for a few hundred years. In Europe, children were married of at an early age and in ancient rome (or was it Greece?) you could marry someone of your own sex. And in many culture, you can marry several men or women. Why are "our" way the only right way? Is the USA not the most successful, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world? Try to argue a little more efficiently. No, you are not. Answer the questions instead of trying the old and withered "USA is the greatest country in the world" on someone that knows better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 23:38:05 GMT
Marriage between 2 or more CONSENTING ADULTS would not allow pedophiles to do anything. Marriage as it stands between a man and a woman allows a pedophile access to the woman's children, if any. Sorry, not good enough. Lawyers would dismantle that in a heartbeat. And, wtf about giving access to a woman's children? Try again. How does allowing homosexuals to marry allow it to happen? No. Definitely not good enough.
|
|