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.
No...I mean man and woman. It's always been a man and a woman. There have been times when a man had multiple wives....but it's always been male/female. Solomon's wives were not married to each other...each of them was married to Solomon. And it was not something God commanded, nor did he say it was good.
No...I mean man and woman. It's always been a man and a woman. There have been times when a man had multiple wives....but it's always been male/female. Solomon's wives were not married to each other...each of them was married to Solomon. And it was not something God commanded, nor did he say it was good.
Not true. Many countries and cultures even had same sex marriages.
Rome did not ban SSM until the Theodosian Code, drawn up by Christian emperors in the fifth century, A.D. made same-sex marriage illegal.
Please learn some FACTS and stop spouting nonsense ans lies. Your god doesn't like it when you lie.
Its definition is: "having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others."
Hmm, who does THAT sound like?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
For thousands of years, the world has considered marriage to be a man and a woman. Only recently has the movement come along to redefine marriage.
This is simply a non-argument. I have repeatedly claimed that one could argue for the return of slavery with this same logic. Thus, in 1863 as Lincoln was about to touch his pen to the Emancipation Proclamation, someone could have piped up and said, "This is tyranny, making me give up my slaves! Slavery has been around for 6,000 years. Who are you to redefine an economic model that has ALWAYS been present in nearly every society? Only recently has there been a movement to free the slaves so why is it even a valid proposition?!"
Wow, isn't it a good thing that Honest Abe didn't listen to that quack? Well, guess who's doing the quacking now.
And no, this isn't an attempt to put being gay on the same level as skin color. It's an attempt to explain to you why your argument for tradition is a fallacy - one cannot argue that something done for a long time is good and righteous by default. NO! That is why this entire premise is a non-argument (as all fallacies are).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
People on this thread have displayed the bigoted attitude that their opinion regarding same-gender "marriage" is superior to mine.
Oh just stop it. No one has said any such thing. The only argument people have made is that gay marriage is equal to your marriage. YOU are the ONLY person on this thread who ever suggested that your marriage is superior so just stop trying to slip these little white lies past my radar. It won't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have been called names, and I have been made fun of.
You haven't gotten even the tiniest fraction of what gay folks endure every day. Wait until you lose your business, have your car vandalized, your house egged, and be called names by CHILDREN who live in the neighborhood. Yeah, that's right. Every time I went to my car there was a gaggle of children not more than 10 years old hollering gay-bashing names at me because I lived with a lesbian couple. Who do you suppose taught them to do such a thing, I wonder? What kind of person do you think instilled in them such vile hatred? I think you know the answer to that even if you refuse to admit it ... even to yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
The fact is, I have logically explained why I believe what I believe.
Yep, you used your 1st Amendment right - and we used ours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
I have not called anyone any names, and I have been polite.
No, actually, you haven't been polite. Your entire premise against gays is very IMpolite. In fact, it's downright rude. How do you think gays feel when they read your posts? Do you think they feel all warm and fuzzy as you sit there and tell them they aren't worthy of marriage? The very second you started to write your first anti-gay post, you became impolite and called people names. Just because it is your opinion and your belief doesn't make it any less nasty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Yet, the other side has routinely displayed a bigoted attitude toward my beliefs.
Seriously, what did you expect? Did you expect gays and their allies to meekly accept your position with big smiles and a plate of cookies? You're the one advocating the curtailing of civil rights of people you just happen not to like - hiding behind fallacies and religion to justify something that is indefensible. And with all of that, you seem to expect people to lay a red carpet at your feet and say, "Yeah! We accept your opinion no matter how wrong it is, no matter how intrusive it is. Sure!"
When you start talking about turning an entire demographic group into 2nd class citizens, you had best be prepared for some blowback. My advice is that if you're going to preach your opinion, you had best grow a thicker skin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Honestly...if you want to call someone a bigot, point your finger at the other side, not at me.
The fact that you began your sentence with the word "honestly" does an injustice to the word. No, that isn't honesty. That's projection and deflection. We're not the ones acting, we're only REacting. It is not us who demand that someone's rights should be violated; it's not us wanting to discriminate against a specific group; it's not us who plucks crap out of the Old Testament to enforce while ignoring all the rest of it; it's not us who are making the claim that gays choose to be who they are; and it's not us making the claim that gays are unworthy of marriage. Nor are we so stuck up and elitist as to suggest that sharing marriage with homosexuals is this horrible, bad, evil, nasty thing.
We aren't the bigots here, Vizio, and you can project on us all day long, it won't change reality.
Now - for my dear readers, I must depart the land of conflict for awhile. My fingers are so sore from typing that the thought of even finishing this sentence makes me cringe. So, for now, adieu and tune in later for another installment of ... well, you know what it is.
You, actually. You are ignoring my statements and trying to force your opinion.
Quote:
This is simply a non-argument. I have repeatedly claimed that one could argue for the return of slavery with this same logic. Thus, in 1863 as Lincoln was about to touch his pen to the Emancipation Proclamation, someone could have piped up and said, "This is tyranny, making me give up my slaves! Slavery has been around for 6,000 years. Who are you to redefine an economic model that has ALWAYS been present in nearly every society? Only recently has there been a movement to free the slaves so why is it even a valid proposition?!"
Wow, isn't it a good thing that Honest Abe didn't listen to that quack? Well, guess who's doing the quacking now.
Once again...we are not talking about skin color. Despite your repeated attempts to link skin color and sexual behavior, they are not the same. Are you able to comprehend the argument? Do you understand the idea that you are begging the question by making this leap in logic?
I'm done. At this point you're simply unable to be reasoned with. I don't know...maybe you are not capable of thinking logically, maybe you're incapable of understanding the point. Maybe you're just unwilling to admit when you have no case.
I get it...you think 2 men should be able to get married, or 2 women. I disagree. Until you can make the case to me that homosexuality is equivalent to skin color and that it requires equal treatment, we are not going to get anywhere.
Marriage, at its roots, requires a husband and a wife. That means a male and a female. That's just what it is. It's not active discrimination--because all people, regardless of sexual preference or gender have to abide by the exact same rules. You have to marry someone of the opposite gender. That's what marriage is. You don't get to change that definition.
No.
Nope.
You are wrong.
You have no understanding of the history of marriage nor the anthropological and sociological reasons why this legal construct we call "marriage" differs in different societies and at different times.
When black people were emancipated in the 1860's the word "citizen" was not redefined. It just was extended to include folks who were not citizens prior to that.
When women were granted suffrage in 1920 the word "vote" was not redefined. A part of the population was extended the right to vote who were previously denied that right.
The tired, old, and factually untrue arguments repeated by Vizio have made no impact on legal scholars, district court judges, state supreme court justices in such states as Iowa and New Jersey, the US District Court of Appeals and the US Supreme Court.
Furthermore, Vizio does NOT get to "define" the word "marriage" to suit his own religious prejudices. But he is free to express his opinion.
You, actually. You are ignoring my statements and trying to force your opinion.
Once again...we are not talking about skin color. Despite your repeated attempts to link skin color and sexual behavior, they are not the same. Are you able to comprehend the argument? Do you understand the idea that you are begging the question by making this leap in logic?
I'm done. At this point you're simply unable to be reasoned with. I don't know...maybe you are not capable of thinking logically, maybe you're incapable of understanding the point. Maybe you're just unwilling to admit when you have no case.
I get it...you think 2 men should be able to get married, or 2 women. I disagree. Until you can make the case to me that homosexuality is equivalent to skin color and that it requires equal treatment, we are not going to get anywhere.
Once again...we ARE talking about your assertion that just because something is "tradition" it has to remain the same way forever. Slavery was a "tradition" and it was banned.
Hetero only marriage is YOUR "tradition" but it is being opened to more people.
Only white male landowners voting was "tradition" but it was expanded to include more people.
"Tradition" means jack squat when it comes to LAWS.
Read any of the SSM cases, they all address the "tradition" angle, and the arguments are completely destroyed.
Once again...we ARE talking about your assertion that just because something is "tradition" it has to remain the same way forever. Slavery was a "tradition" and it was banned.
Hetero only marriage is YOUR "tradition" but it is being opened to more people.
Only white male landowners voting was "tradition" but it was expanded to include more people.
"Tradition" means jack squat when it comes to LAWS.
Read any of the SSM cases, they all address the "tradition" angle, and the arguments are completely destroyed.
Slavery was abolished because it was immoral, by a vote of the people, no less. You have not demonstrated that there is sufficient reason to change the definition of marriage.
There is one expression that particularly annoys me: "Love the sinner, but hate the sin." I am not against the concept or meaning behind it, but rather the verbal or written expression of it directed at someone deemed "the sinner" by those who practice religion.
One thing is clear: it judgemental and patronizing in the extreme.
Imagine telling someone "Oh, I love you Albert ... love you as my own brother ... but you're fat and that's a result of your gluttony. Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins! I don't want you to burn in hell for eternity! I love you enough to tell you that you are a Glutton. I want you to stop the sinful behavior of gluttony. You weren't born a Glutton, but chose to engage in that sinful behavior."
Now I seriously doubt that anyone reading this ever said that to an overweight person.
The expression is more often than not hurled at gay people by self-professed "Christians."
If you entertain such a position, may I respectfully and politely request that you do not voice your opinion to someone you deem to be engaging in sinful yet legal behavior. It is rude. Perhaps the person your opinion is directed at is not a Christian and doesn't even believe in "sin." Perhaps the other person will construe you as being self righteous and you are "casting the first stone."
When people use this expression, they are being politically correct as well. This gives them a way to be against gays and gay rights while not being called haters.
It is a way for those who are truly hostile towards equality for gay people to do so in a less offensive politically correct manner than had commonly been done years ago. It is great that they are being called on their "PC" more often now.
You quite accurately pointed out that it is truly offensive, mainly because it is rude and IMO pretentious and fake, too! These people do not like gay people period. They just won't admit it!
Slavery was abolished because it was immoral, by a vote of the people, no less. You have not demonstrated that there is sufficient reason to change the definition of marriage.
And people used the "tradition" argument ot try to keep it, just like you are using now.
The way the law works in the real world, is the state has to show how denying equal protections to a segment of society will further a compelling state interest. We don't have to prove anything except that we are being denied equal protections. That is easily done by pointing to state laws that forbid us from getting married, and thus receiving the 1100+ federal protections that a marriage license confer.
Now, how does denying me marriage further a compelling state interest?
I've also seen some of the wacky things you believe regarding theology. Logic and clear thinking isn't your strong suit. So what you think isn't very important to me, to be honest.
Tolerance of different viewpoints (while still disagreeing) does not appear to be your strong suit. Maybe what you think is not that important to others, either. All of us have the same First Amendment right to comment in these forums.
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.
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.
