6/14/2013 11:37 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I think you're stuck arguing semantics again.
I don't think the definition of a word is semantics.   Definitions are definitions.    The accepted definition of marriage in the US has always been "one man, one woman".    SCOTUS has never altered that. 
The definition was one man, one women, of the same race. They changed that definition even though that's the way marriage had always been defined in the US.

No, it was "one man, one woman".   Then the states added "same race".    Then SCOTUS said "I think not".

Don't dance around it. 

The first interracial marriage ban was passed in 1664, while we were still a colony. SCOTUS didn't rule on the issue for over 200 years.
6/14/2013 11:48 AM
A propaganda based anti-homosexual agenda (which you are part of) needs to change the accepted definition of the words so that they can continue to push their anti-homosexual agenda.

No one needs to change the accepted definitions of anything. Some people are merely suggesting that the definition shouldn't have changed from what it was in the first place, and none of them are using propaganda to do so.

If those of you in the homosexual agenda had never promoted the lie that sexuality is not a choice through your bull **** propaganda, this would be a non-issue.

6/14/2013 11:52 AM
What lie? You don't choose the gender that you are attracted to.
6/14/2013 12:11 PM
The lie that sexuality isn't a choice.

Obviously you can choose to be with someone other than the most attractive person you find or the person with the most features you find appealing.

You are not a slave to what you find most attractive and do have a choice in the matter. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

6/14/2013 12:21 PM
Almost everyone partners up with the gender they are attracted to.
6/14/2013 1:45 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 11:37:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 11:15:00 AM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 10:32:00 AM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 10:22:00 AM (view original):
I think you're stuck arguing semantics again.
I don't think the definition of a word is semantics.   Definitions are definitions.    The accepted definition of marriage in the US has always been "one man, one woman".    SCOTUS has never altered that. 
The definition was one man, one women, of the same race. They changed that definition even though that's the way marriage had always been defined in the US.

No, it was "one man, one woman".   Then the states added "same race".    Then SCOTUS said "I think not".

Don't dance around it. 

The first interracial marriage ban was passed in 1664, while we were still a colony. SCOTUS didn't rule on the issue for over 200 years.
It's kind of irrelevant when they ruled on the issue.   SCOTUS, or any state/local governing body, has ever changed the definition of "one man, one woman".    Ever.   As I said, states starting throwing out new laws until SCOTUS said "No, you can't do that".   However, SCOTUS did NOT change the definition of marriage.
6/14/2013 2:05 PM
Again, you're arguing semantics. Prior to 1967, the definition of marriage never included interracial couples in the entire history of the state of Virginia. That definition changed in 1967.
6/14/2013 2:11 PM
I don't think the definition of a word is semantics.   Definitions are definitions.    The accepted definition of marriage in the US has always been "one man, one woman".    SCOTUS has never altered that. 

6/14/2013 2:13 PM
I'll ask again, if "civil union" came with all the same rights/benefits of "marriage" would that be good enough?
6/14/2013 2:16 PM
Almost everyone partners up with the gender they are attracted to.

A choice still exists regardless of how many people choose any given particular option within that choice. That's what you don't seem to be able to understand.


6/14/2013 2:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the definition of a word is semantics.   Definitions are definitions.    The accepted definition of marriage in the US has always been "one man, one woman".    SCOTUS has never altered that. 

No ****. And until 1967 that one man one woman definition also included same race. In 1967 the definition changed to just one man one woman.
6/14/2013 2:18 PM
No ****. And until 1967 that one man one woman definition also included same race. In 1967 the definition changed to just one man one woman.

Race is biological. Sexuality is a choice. Big difference.
6/14/2013 2:21 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:13:00 PM (view original):
I'll ask again, if "civil union" came with all the same rights/benefits of "marriage" would that be good enough?
As evidenced by the amount of resistance gays have faced, marriage means something more. Even if the legal benefits are the same.

My solution is this, elimination of government marriage. Marriage stays a religious term and, in the eyes of the law, everyone--gay or straight--is in a civil union.

Gays could still get married in their own churches if they want to and the government stays out of it.
6/14/2013 2:22 PM
Posted by bistiza on 6/14/2013 2:18:00 PM (view original):
No ****. And until 1967 that one man one woman definition also included same race. In 1967 the definition changed to just one man one woman.

Race is biological. Sexuality is a choice. Big difference.
It isn't a choice. Your sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to.
6/14/2013 2:34 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):
I don't think the definition of a word is semantics.   Definitions are definitions.    The accepted definition of marriage in the US has always been "one man, one woman".    SCOTUS has never altered that. 

No ****. And until 1967 that one man one woman definition also included same race. In 1967 the definition changed to just one man one woman.
No it didn't.   At least not in the eyes of the Federal government.  Those were state laws.  The accepted definition of marriage in the US(even when we were colonies) was "one man, one woman".     The Feds nor the states have ever changed that definition.  Never.

What part of this is too complicated for you to understand?
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.