6/14/2013 2:40 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.
The most common and generally accepted definition of marriage since the beginning of human culture has been one man, one woman.  The fact that a few rogue states in the US added another restriction, that SCOTUS eventually and rightfully overturned, is irrelevant.
6/14/2013 2:43 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.
Even if you're going to stubbornly stick to your (il)logic that suggests that sexuality is a choice, you aren't proving it isn't biological.  Even if it's only a biological tendency.

Of course, the whole thing is disingenuous.  I'd bet quite a bit that if heterosexual marriage became illegal tomorrow you'd die single.  Most people don't have sufficiently flexible sexuality to be happy with a person of the gender to which they are NOT particularly attractive.  I know I wouldn't be.  Odds are you feel the same way, but of course you'll deny it.
6/14/2013 2:43 PM
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
6/14/2013 2:49 PM
It isn't a choice. Your sexuality is defined by who you are attracted to.

Because you say so? Because some other people say so? Because you all agree?

After all this time, that's ALL you've given in defense of this position, and it means NOTHING.

Sexuality IS a choice. No one even bothers to dispute this unless they are a fool or a liar trying to forward the homosexual agenda.
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.

There still needs to be some distinction between homosexual civil unions and heterosexual civil unions.
Even if you're going to stubbornly stick to your (il)logic that suggests that sexuality is a choice, you aren't proving it isn't biological.  Even if it's only a biological tendency.
Attraction is a biological tendency, but attraction and sexuality are NOT the same thing.
Of course, the whole thing is disingenuous.  I'd bet quite a bit that if heterosexual marriage became illegal tomorrow you'd die single.  Most people don't have sufficiently flexible sexuality to be happy with a person of the gender to which they are NOT particularly attractive.  I know I wouldn't be.  Odds are you feel the same way, but of course you'll deny it.
The choice actually made by any individual (including you and I) in any given circumstance doesn't somehow prevent it from having been a choice in the first place.  The choice of the majority of people doesn't prevent it from being a choice in the first place either.

Regardless of what choice is actually made by anyone, the majority, or whatever, the fact that it IS a choice doesn't change.

6/14/2013 2:52 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
6/14/2013 2:53 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Irrelevant even if you're right/wrong.

My argument is that their ruling in 1967, overturning state restrictions, did not alter the accepted definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    No precedent was set in 1967 wrt the definition of marriage.
6/14/2013 2:58 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Would that be DOMA?

Because if it is, then that means that the ONLY LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN U.S. HISTORY would be "one man, one woman".
6/14/2013 3:01 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Would that be DOMA?

Because if it is, then that means that the ONLY LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN U.S. HISTORY would be "one man, one woman".
How marriage has worked and been defined has changed several times in both US and human history.
6/14/2013 3:03 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Irrelevant even if you're right/wrong.

My argument is that their ruling in 1967, overturning state restrictions, did not alter the accepted definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    No precedent was set in 1967 wrt the definition of marriage.
I think you may be the one who doesn't understand how precedent works.
6/14/2013 3:04 PM
So the answer is "Yes, the only legal definition of marriage in U.S. history has been one man/ one woman"?
6/14/2013 3:05 PM
What I want to know is, why is it okay for the homosexual agenda to push its beliefs on everyone else, but if anyone says "no, my beliefs are against that", it isn't okay?
6/14/2013 3:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:01:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 2:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Would that be DOMA?

Because if it is, then that means that the ONLY LEGAL DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE IN U.S. HISTORY would be "one man, one woman".
How marriage has worked and been defined has changed several times in both US and human history.
Yet the one constant has always been "one man, one woman".
6/14/2013 3:05 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:53:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 6/14/2013 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 2:43:00 PM (view original):
I think this might go 40 pages until BL manages to shift the direction of the discussion. 

The Federal Gov't has never altered the accepted definition of marriage from "one man, one woman".   That is a simple fact that doesn't work in BL's argument.
I may be wrong , but The Feds didnt define marriage until the 90's.
Irrelevant even if you're right/wrong.

My argument is that their ruling in 1967, overturning state restrictions, did not alter the accepted definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    No precedent was set in 1967 wrt the definition of marriage.
I think you may be the one who doesn't understand how precedent works.
Countering with "you're dumb" doesn't change the facts.

You've been parading "1967" as the time SCOTUS set the precedent of changing the definition of marriage.   They didn't.  

A simple fact. 
6/14/2013 3:06 PM
Yeah, and for the Bible thumpers, God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve or Madam and Eve.
6/14/2013 3:08 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 6/14/2013 3:04:00 PM (view original):
So the answer is "Yes, the only legal definition of marriage in U.S. history has been one man/ one woman"?
Was there a question there? Yeah that was DOMA. If your best argument is a law that's about to get tossed, you probably shouldn't work so hard to draw attention to it.
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.