Question: Now that expensive militaristic fascism is going out, will these boards still retain their vitriol?
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, September 19, 2025 19:30
VIEWED: 17791
PAGE 14 of 25
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
will these boards still retain their vitriol?
Clearly.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Marriage means 1 man + 1 woman. dork.
Gays CAN marry the opposite sex, just as anyone else can. EXACT same rights, pal.
What makes you so afraid of expanding your personal definition of marriage - the way marriage has been adjusted over the long period of its existence, time and again?
Why do you so desperately insist on this 1woman+1man definition when it has NOT always defined marriage?
Why do you insist that children are the point of marriage when the creation of a stable family is, which is entirely different?
Do you honestly think that allowing gays the right to marry will diminish the concept of marriage? Do you HONESTLY?
It would be really nice if you could explain your thoughts with regard to these questions, because while you have stated your opinion, you have yet to enter in any adult discussion about it.
(I'd be far more interested in you actually having a conversation about your views than this human rights thing. Because your avoidance of calmly reacting to certain questions directly pertaining to your stated view makes it look like you are trying to back up a personal discomfort with an assumed general truth, thus removing your responsibility to defend your position.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Words mean things. By diluting what the word 'marriage ' means, and all that it implies, it cheapens what marriage is, and for what ? To placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus they say so ? Sorry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it. Gays can unite, join, partner, live with, what ever the hell you want to call it, getting all the benefits of those who marry, but it's still not a marriage. Why is that such a big deal ? No one is denying anyone's right here, nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part , not in the least. Just don't call it marriage, because it's NOT a marriage.
There's nothing 'mean' here, what so ever. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts, as they are, and nothing else. Celebrate your life with whom ever you want, and if you're lucky to find someone to share it with, by all means, have at it. 
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Words mean things. By diluting what the word 'marriage ' means, and all that it implies, it cheapens what marriage is, and for what ? To placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus they say so ? Sorry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it. Gays can unite, join, partner, live with, what ever the hell you want to call it, getting all the benefits of those who marry, but it's still not a marriage. Why is that such a big deal ? No one is denying anyone's right here, nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part , not in the least. Just don't call it marriage, because it's NOT a marriage.
There's nothing 'mean' here, what so ever. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts, as they are, and nothing else. Celebrate your life with whom ever you want, and if you're lucky to find someone to share it with, by all means, have at it.
Thank you for replying.
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights. That's not what this is about.
People here are arguing against the basis of your argument: that "Marriage" means what you say it means, 1man+1woman.
You aren't really adressing those concerns. You just keep restating that position instead of proving it or defending it rationally.
What about the fact that there were same-sex marriages historically, or the fact that the spirit of marriage has changed over time, i.e. is not static, or the fact that it is not about producing children but creating family? I'd like to read your thoughts about THAT.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With close to a million divorces every year, straight folk aren't exactly adding value to that word, are they? 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Words mean things. By diluting what the word 'marriage ' means, and all that it implies, it cheapens what marriage is, and for what ? To placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus they say so ? Sorry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it. Gays can unite, join, partner, live with, what ever the hell you want to call it, getting all the benefits of those who marry, but it's still not a marriage. Why is that such a big deal ? No one is denying anyone's right here, nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part , not in the least. Just don't call it marriage, because it's NOT a marriage.
There's nothing 'mean' here, what so ever. It's a simple acknowledgement of the facts, as they are, and nothing else. Celebrate your life with whom ever you want, and if you're lucky to find someone to share it with, by all means, have at it.
You still haven't explained HOW it "dilutes" or "cheapens" what marriage is. Hell, you haven't rationally explained what marriage really is in the first place. And hetero couples are doing a bang-up job of ruining the word and the rite already, what with the fact that a minimum of HALF of all traditional marriages in this country fail.
The right wants to define marriage as what THEY want it to mean; in other words, YOU want to "placate a very tiny, noisy and often violent minority, just becaus[sic] they say so". In your own words, "[s]orry, but sometimes you can't get what you want, merely because you want it."
"No one is denying anyone's right here [except that you are], nor is anyone keeping 2 people a part[sic] [except that you are]..."
Mike
PS: By all means, feel free to unleash another one of your screaming little tantrums at me. Every time you snap and lose your shit, I win.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights.
...raises hand...
Actually, that is EXACTLY what I think this is about.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Frem:
On the Osama thing (him being all morbid and corpsified and all), I don't doubt that he's croaked it, shuffled off this mortal coil, and all that, but I'd really like some confirmation, just for closure, if you will...
I'll take it one step further and say I want some proof that he ever really even existed and we're not all, each and every One of us, victims of a egregiously elongated "Two Minutes Hate"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Goldstein
In a world where anyone who innocently leaves their backpack somewhere is considered a potential terrorist because the bomb squad is called out to "defuse" it, what comfort will closure on this issue truly bring you?
After all, since "Terrorism" can happen to anyone at any time, orchestrated by any One of us, isn't it likely true that once he's "gone" he could very easily be replaced by somebody else who doesn't think that being invaded, tainted and having your country serve as a bunch of bitches for more powerful countries is a good idea for their people?
Or, for that matter, by any one of us who one day may decide to think the same about their brothers and sisters being used in a similar fashion by their own benevolent Government....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Find me that federal definition. Go, boy ! Fetch !
There is the Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton.
But the Court in the Virginia case used the word "marriage". Anytime a court uses a term that is not specifically defined in the law then you must delve into the realm of common law for a definition. Marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.
Here is the common law definition...short version...marriage is a contract between a free man and free woman to live their lives in the union that which exists between husband and wives. They must be free, meaning neither slaves, nor already married. They must be able to contract, meaning no minors (without parental permission), no mental infirmaty, sober (except in Vegas), etc. No force or fraud. No immediate family or first cousins (except in West Virginia). There are some other cool things like consumation and vows and such and of course the legal effects, but you get the point.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't think anyone here really thinks that you are against granting gays equal rights.
...raises hand...
Actually, that is EXACTLY what I think this is about.
But you can't prove that unless he ultimately denies/proves that his terminological argument is fallacious. Right now he is avoiding that argument. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Maybe he has a real, logical point? If he continues to refuse to back up his claim, this conclusion can be officially drawn.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME