Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-24-2009, 07:03 PM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,404,259 times
Reputation: 732

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
As always, this is the rebuttal of this failed position. Homosexuals can NEVER produce a bloodline between their union. When we look at marriage and its purpose, its core is to recognize this relation. The fact that a couple may choose not to create one or by some factor is incapable of doing so does not invalidate the historical definition and purpose.

The entire purpose of such in its origin was designed for such. It was designed as such because it was common knowledge that man and woman could produce a bloodline. Your attempt to find a ***** in the armor of my position is nothing more than an attempt to argue over details that are irrelevant to the issue.

The fact is... homosexual never can produce as such between them. One could be devious making the position that homosexuals can produce, but one would be purposely ignoring the fact that this is an issue of those married, not that one can go out and find another to carry or donate as such. The issue is between the historical purpose of marriage, not a technicality designed to win an argument in spite of the purpose of the position.

Again, this is about the definition. Homosexuals do not fit the definition. Adding them to the list would invalidate the historical definition ultimately resulting in confusing the understanding of such. Civil unions meet a proper delineation by describing the relation as one that can never produce. Not because of choice, not because of a medical condition, but because it is a simple unquestionable fact of the issue.

Let us have intelligent conversation that is without devious motive, shall we?
And you will continue to attempt to use this lame and unrelated (and devious) point until it has run it's course, just like every other lame and unrelated attempt by anti-Equality people used in the past.

The purpose of marriage is so that two loving people can have their commitment to one another accepted and recognized by their peers, and to enjoy the legal benefits of said marriage.

Marriage today is about love, not "bloodlines".

You also contradict yourself quite openly as well, stating that, in effect, "it doesn't matter if people can't/won't have children to carry on the bloodline", yet gays are somehow excluded from this statement.

Marriage is totally and absolutely unneccessary for the production of children, or the raising of said children either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-24-2009, 07:05 PM
 
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
7,835 posts, read 8,423,051 times
Reputation: 8564
The logic, it burnssssssssssss!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2009, 11:09 PM
 
Location: um....guess
10,503 posts, read 15,538,440 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post

What is silly about this is that so much effort it being put into it to change a logical meaning to an illogical one when the options to achieve everything acceptable already exists.
It's funny watching you flail about in your own big words & grammatically correct usage....you still don't get it, do you? Your very own words slam you back into a stupid blue-collar world, don't they? I know that burrrrrrrns, but it's true. "The options to achieve everything acceptable already exists"?? Hello, you are right there acknowledging that yes, yes willie wonka, it's true, I can set out to do what I set out to do. The options ARE already out there....derrrrr!!!!! If they weren't, we wouldn't be talking about them, now would we? Cripes, for all of your "insight", you really have not much to say now do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 07:07 AM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,354,108 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
Yes I am against it, why because it is a sin to have a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman.
Now I see your problem...you are apparently unaware that ALL gay people only have sex standing up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 11:38 AM
 
4,474 posts, read 5,404,259 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tymberwulf View Post
Yes I am against it, why because it is a sin to have a man laying with a man or a woman laying with a woman. I am also against it for other more mundane reasons, namely that it destroys the social fabric of our communities and harms our rate of reproduction which must be maintained at a certain level in order for our society to survive.

Go ahead and flame away now.
Why flame? You are merely uninformed. Faliming comes into the pciture if you refuse simple facts and purposly remain ignorant and uninformed.

1. Gays do not inherently "destroy" anything, social fabric or anything else. What destroys the "social fabric" is the unfounded bigotruy and hatred directed towards them.

2. Depending on which side of the debate one talks to, anywhere from 3% to 10% of the human p[opulation has always been, is, and will be homosexual. So your fear of "reproductive rate" harm is unfounded.

3. Your Christian moral set does not apply to the entire world, or to this entire Nation either.

Science has found that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, if merely as uncommon. Hating someone for being gay is like hating someone for being a Ginger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:42 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn View Post
No, I don't see the problem. The brain is not fully developed until the age of ~ 25. Not your grandfather's or grandmother's. Children do all kinds of things to survive. The survival instinct does not lend to the ability to consent. Try again.
So are you making a case to raising the adult limit to 25? You didn't counter my position. I used practical real examples and you used an academic claim that does not even deal with the issue, especially considering our laws currently.

Define what an adult is. Is there some special thing that happens at age 25 where we then become adults? What does a fully developed brain prove in terms of ones actions of responsibility? What evidence do you have that supports this position? I mean, I am sure you must have extensive research that correlates "adult like" behavior based on your age limit right? So how does the 24 and below test subjects differ in their ability to act as an adult (whatever you define that as) from those of 25 and above? What was the consistent delineation between them? What aspects of "adult behavior" did both groups display?

Please explain, I would love to hear this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:53 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
What I'd really like for you to explain for us is exactly when it was that you made the choice to become a heterosexual.

I think that answer will explain quite a lot about nature, humanity, and the DOMA in one succinct little package.
Then please explain what it is you think it is?

Are you going to take the route of genetic inheritance? Are we born this way? Is there a gay gene? Which one is it? Anyone find it yet?

Or... Maybe you will take the position of chemical imbalance? Are we chemically balanced a certain way and well, some just get short changed at the vending machine?

Maybe you would like to take the socially created position. Was there a life experience that led to it? Did daddy pay to much attention? Not enough? Did uncle bill make those late night visits to the bedroom? Is it a choice?

Honestly, I don't care which it is. If it is genetic, well then it must be a mutation. Naturally, it does not serve evolutionary progress as it is counter to the concept of it. Abnormal there.

If it is chemically imbalanced, well we have issues with all types of abnormal development concerning this. People take medications, get treatment and the like. Again, abnormal.

If it is socially derived, then it is either a negative sexual or emotional experience that set it off or it is simply a choice to be as such based on some social conformity or rebellion.

Regardless, heterosexual behavior is the norm. I care not to take your path of discussion about me personally because it is nothing short of a setup to a personal attack. By all means though, please explain your position if it is academic, or were you simply formulating another logical fallacy to find support for a lacking position?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:55 PM
 
30,023 posts, read 18,596,563 times
Reputation: 20807
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
Court papers were filed today by the Obama administration to end the 1996 DOMA claiming it discriminates against gays. Although the Justice department must defend any challenges to federal statutes whether they agree with them or not, Obama has pledged his support to repeal the act. The gay community supported Obama in the presidential election and has become increasingly critical of Obama lack of support in abolishing DOMA.
Print Story: Obama administration says marriage law unfair - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_gay_marriage/print - broken link)

There is that word "unfair" again. Obama is going to put those people that produce the Webster's Dictionary on overtime with all the "newspeak" words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 05:58 PM
 
25,157 posts, read 53,875,707 times
Reputation: 7058
I agree. What evidence and proof does anybody have that gays are prone to destroying the social fabric? Also the fact that some bigots argue that gays are indoctrinating children is garbage because most gays do not want to have anything to do with kids or schools nor do gays have any private daycares set up to preach the word of Gayness.

Fear of non-reproduction is a problem with straight people. They assume that if everybody became gay then the world would expire. That is another example of their convoluted and inept logic because the majority of men and women have a predisposition to have sex with each other and reproduce. Gays have always been a small portion of society and will most likely not increase in size. Gays can also donate sperm. Lesbians can donate eggs.

The Christian morals are completely convoluted and warped. Here is why, the bible forbids divorce and states that people who divorce are committing adultery and should be put to death. It also states that if you are glutton then you should commit suicide. The Bible is completely convoluted and warped and Christians must understand that if they despise and revolt against the gay populations then they must despise and revolt against themselves because there are far more divorcees and gluttons than there are gays.

Science has found that gays are born with similar brains to hetero women. It is a brain formation that makes men attracted to each other. It really makes sense doesn't it.







Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi View Post
Why flame? You are merely uninformed. Faliming comes into the pciture if you refuse simple facts and purposly remain ignorant and uninformed.

1. Gays do not inherently "destroy" anything, social fabric or anything else. What destroys the "social fabric" is the unfounded bigotruy and hatred directed towards them.

2. Depending on which side of the debate one talks to, anywhere from 3% to 10% of the human p[opulation has always been, is, and will be homosexual. So your fear of "reproductive rate" harm is unfounded.

3. Your Christian moral set does not apply to the entire world, or to this entire Nation either.

Science has found that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality, if merely as uncommon. Hating someone for being gay is like hating someone for being a Ginger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-25-2009, 06:03 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by KLDanford View Post
Okay. I get your explanation of what marriage meant historically. Merriam-Webster offers several different definitions of marriage below.(sorry mod, i know we're not arguing dictionaries, i just have to address this!) One mentioned heterosexual union specifically, one mentioned homosexual union.

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union.

I do not understand why you insist that in allowing gay to marry, it's changing the definition. A marriage is the state of being united to another person. we'd just be extending that right to people who happen to be in love with someone of the samesex. what's the big deal? WHY marriage came about (and all your info about bloodlines etc) is fine and dandy, but that has to do with history, not the current state of things.

Until 1866 in this country, the definition of citizenship did not include slaves/former slaves. I'm sure there were people like you that argued til they were blue in the face against "changing" that definition to make black people citizens. Like I said, times change.

What purpose does it serve to make a definition even more vague when perfectly acceptable declarations exist? You ask why I care about the definition change, I ask what is wrong with a civil union contract? a marriage contract was that of joining families as I explained. There is no "joining" of families in a homosexual coupling. There is no link ever in its union. A heterosexual couple may or may not end up with a joining (producing a bloodline), but in most cases it is possible and one could even safely say "likely".

This can never exist in a homosexual union. So why do we confuse the historical and purposeful issue of Marriage with this subject?

Some say it is a matter of rights, well... civil unions can deal with this. Some say "That is segregation" and my only response is "no more than your credit card is from your ATM card". The point is, they are documents that serve a purpose. They are tools of logical informative declaration. A credit card while very similar to an ATM card has key background differences that are crucial to their purpose and function. On the surface, people even mistake them from each other calling one the other, but the distinction is only important when we get down to the details of their function. That is only where it is relevant.

Again, demanding a definitional change in this matter is absurd. It serves only to massage emotional positions and serves no logical purpose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:47 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top