7/12/2013 2:23 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 1:15:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 12:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 11:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 10:47:00 AM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 10:08:00 AM (view original):
Exactly what I have not defended?
Please answer the following:




Gay marriage should be illegal because __________.
Gay marriage should be illegal because human culture has defined marriage as being between one man and one woman.

That was my first word on the subject, and my final word on the subject.  After 290 pages, I'm not going to revisit that discussion any longer.
That's kinda his point.  You make this statement, and when asked to expand upon your reasoning on those thoughts, you really don't dive deeper.  You kinda dodged a lot of questions, often by referring back to page 3 or whatever the first time you made this point.  

It's like me saying if I said "food has always been X, I don't believe we should include all this fake manufactured stuff as food," and you asked "what's the harm in this change in definition" and I said "see my first statement. keeping this tradition is important to me" you might get frustrated. 
I did expand on my reasoning.  I said that it doesn't make sense to me to change an ages old definition on a whim.  Doing anything on a whim is not necessarily a good idea.
Extending equal rights to all is not "a whim."
Marriage has been defined as "one man, one woman" for tens of thousands of years.  That's been a constant across many millenia and cultures throughout the course of human history.

The idea of SSM has been around for maybe a couple of decades.

In that context, it's a "whim".

Also, according to SCOTUS, SSM is not a question of "equal rights", i.e. covered by the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.  Baker v. Nelson established that.
7/12/2013 2:24 PM
Posted by stinenavy on 7/12/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 7/12/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Biz, I have you blocked because I'm limited to dealing with two retards at a time, and mike and tec were here first, but I already answered that. I won't answer again. You're welcome to go through the 300 pages to find my simple yes or no response.
No, you never answered it but you're pretending you already did so you can justify continuing to not answer.

Your refusal indicates you likely ARE a homosexual, which makes sense given how stubborn you are in defending SSM. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to tell me.


By your logic, you would be a homophobe.
Biz, I answered it in the post right after you gave your evidence for a young earth. Go look. I'll wait.
7/12/2013 2:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I've answered every question you've asked.

The reason you can't give an answer is that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage. We know this because gay marriage is legal now in plenty of places and nothing bad has happened because of it.

What you should have said 290 pages ago is, "you're right, there is no harm, I just don't like gay people." The discussion would have stopped there.
When did I ever say or imply "I don't like gay people"?
7/12/2013 2:26 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 1:21:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2013 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2013 1:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 1:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/12/2013 1:04:00 PM (view original):
I'll try to put this in a way that you should understand but obviously won't.

There are people out there that feel legalizing SSM is bad for society.  

Your opinion is no more, or less, valid than their opinion. 
Is anyone's opinion ever more or less valid than anyone elses on any subject?
Sure.   I'm not going to argue the value of an up-tempo offense with Chip Kelly.   My guess is he knows more on the subject.

The problem we've got here is that some feel they "know" the effects of SSM on society.   They insist they do.   They do not. 
The ones who are arguing that the effects are negative are basically saying "I dunno, maybe.  Slow down!  Something bad might happen."  And the ones arguing for equality look at them funny.
Equality has already been covered.   We are not equal despite what the Constitution says.   You can start with rich/poor and work from there if you'd like.
It was. Under the constitution, everyone gets equal protection under the law. Even the gays.
Baker v. Nelson.  SCOTUS established that SSM is not a matter of equal protection.

You know that.  Why do you deny that?
7/12/2013 2:28 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 7/12/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM:
I've answered every question you've asked.
No, you haven't. There is this major question you have never answered:

bad_luck, ARE YOU HOMOSEXUAL?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

I think he was responding to tec when he said that.



wait...are you and tec the same person?
This may be the first time I've been really offended in this forum.
7/12/2013 2:30 PM
The ability to make end of life decisions for your partner is not a whim. Deciding to grab an ice cream cone on the way home from work is a whim. Glad I could explain that for you.
7/12/2013 2:35 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 2:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 1:43:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 7/12/2013 1:35:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM:
I've answered every question you've asked.
No, you haven't. There is this major question you have never answered:

bad_luck, ARE YOU HOMOSEXUAL?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

I think he was responding to tec when he said that.



wait...are you and tec the same person?
This may be the first time I've been really offended in this forum.
Perfect!!!





"I'm done here."
7/12/2013 2:38 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I've answered every question you've asked.

The reason you can't give an answer is that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage. We know this because gay marriage is legal now in plenty of places and nothing bad has happened because of it.

What you should have said 290 pages ago is, "you're right, there is no harm, I just don't like gay people." The discussion would have stopped there.
When did I ever say or imply "I don't like gay people"?
Your insistence that marriage must be between man and woman, and to remain that way, because it was important to your belief system and tradition.
You arguing that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.
Your insistence that children are raised better when a man and woman raising them.
You arguing that 2 members of the same sex and their child is not considered a family.
You arguing that homosexuals want gay marriage for the sake of "political correctness."

If I heard all of this information from one person, one could argue it implies that the person does not like gay people.
7/12/2013 2:41 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 2:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bistiza on 7/12/2013 2:08:00 PM (view original):
Biz, I have you blocked because I'm limited to dealing with two retards at a time, and mike and tec were here first, but I already answered that. I won't answer again. You're welcome to go through the 300 pages to find my simple yes or no response.
No, you never answered it but you're pretending you already did so you can justify continuing to not answer.

Your refusal indicates you likely ARE a homosexual, which makes sense given how stubborn you are in defending SSM. If I'm wrong about that, feel free to tell me.


I don't understand. I thought you said I was bad_luck, and I told you I'm not gay. Let's put your famous logical skills to work:



genghis is not gay

bad_luck = genghis

therefore, bad_luck {is, is not} gay



You expect biz to understand basic logic (literally. basic logic.)

LOL
7/12/2013 3:13 PM
By your logic, you would be a homophobe.

How so? Especially considering I've flat out stated that I'm not a homophobe, while bad_luck refuses to make any statement concerning his sexuality.
genghis is not gay

bad_luck = genghis

therefore, bad_luck {is, is not} gay

 
I want to see it under the bad_luck user name, just so he (you) can't deny it later under that user name.
Biz, I answered it in the post right after you gave your evidence for a young earth. Go look. I'll wait.
No, you didn't.  No one every discussed sexuality in any way during the topic where I gave evidence for a young earth. So how about indulging us now?

It's pretty sad that you'll staunchly defend SSM but while you're doing it you are too scared to admit you are a homosexual yourself.
7/12/2013 4:58 PM
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I've answered every question you've asked.

The reason you can't give an answer is that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage. We know this because gay marriage is legal now in plenty of places and nothing bad has happened because of it.

What you should have said 290 pages ago is, "you're right, there is no harm, I just don't like gay people." The discussion would have stopped there.
When did I ever say or imply "I don't like gay people"?
Your insistence that marriage must be between man and woman, and to remain that way, because it was important to your belief system and tradition.
You arguing that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.
Your insistence that children are raised better when a man and woman raising them.
You arguing that 2 members of the same sex and their child is not considered a family.
You arguing that homosexuals want gay marriage for the sake of "political correctness."

If I heard all of this information from one person, one could argue it implies that the person does not like gay people.
So if somebody has specific opinions on specific topics that run contrary to PC, he must be a hater?

Got it.  Good to know.  Thanks.

So let's all just bid adieu to independent thought, and let our minds be guided by liberal bloggers.
7/12/2013 4:59 PM
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):
The ability to make end of life decisions for your partner is not a whim. Deciding to grab an ice cream cone on the way home from work is a whim. Glad I could explain that for you.
I've already said that I'm all in favor of giving those rights to civil unions.

Did you miss that?

Do you have a problem with that?
7/12/2013 5:10 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I've answered every question you've asked.

The reason you can't give an answer is that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage. We know this because gay marriage is legal now in plenty of places and nothing bad has happened because of it.

What you should have said 290 pages ago is, "you're right, there is no harm, I just don't like gay people." The discussion would have stopped there.
When did I ever say or imply "I don't like gay people"?
Your insistence that marriage must be between man and woman, and to remain that way, because it was important to your belief system and tradition.
You arguing that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.
Your insistence that children are raised better when a man and woman raising them.
You arguing that 2 members of the same sex and their child is not considered a family.
You arguing that homosexuals want gay marriage for the sake of "political correctness."

If I heard all of this information from one person, one could argue it implies that the person does not like gay people.
So if somebody has specific opinions on specific topics that run contrary to PC, he must be a hater?

Got it.  Good to know.  Thanks.

So let's all just bid adieu to independent thought, and let our minds be guided by liberal bloggers.
If I came on here and said that I don't think blacks should be allowed to marry whites because it violates my personal beliefs and traditions, that children are better off in homes where the parents are the same race, that interracial couples don't qualify as a real family in my mind, that interracial marriage is just another example of society caving in to pressure to be politically correct, would you consider me racist?
7/12/2013 5:14 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 4:59:00 PM (view original):
Posted by genghisxcon on 7/12/2013 2:30:00 PM (view original):
The ability to make end of life decisions for your partner is not a whim. Deciding to grab an ice cream cone on the way home from work is a whim. Glad I could explain that for you.
I've already said that I'm all in favor of giving those rights to civil unions.

Did you miss that?

Do you have a problem with that?
Separate but equal, the sequel?

If your only objection is a linguistic one, is that really something the government needs to be involved in?
7/12/2013 6:24 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 4:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 7/12/2013 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 7/12/2013 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/12/2013 12:41:00 PM (view original):
I've answered every question you've asked.

The reason you can't give an answer is that there is no harm in allowing gay marriage. We know this because gay marriage is legal now in plenty of places and nothing bad has happened because of it.

What you should have said 290 pages ago is, "you're right, there is no harm, I just don't like gay people." The discussion would have stopped there.
When did I ever say or imply "I don't like gay people"?
Your insistence that marriage must be between man and woman, and to remain that way, because it was important to your belief system and tradition.
You arguing that SSM defeats the purpose of marriage.
Your insistence that children are raised better when a man and woman raising them.
You arguing that 2 members of the same sex and their child is not considered a family.
You arguing that homosexuals want gay marriage for the sake of "political correctness."

If I heard all of this information from one person, one could argue it implies that the person does not like gay people.
So if somebody has specific opinions on specific topics that run contrary to PC, he must be a hater?

Got it.  Good to know.  Thanks.

So let's all just bid adieu to independent thought, and let our minds be guided by liberal bloggers.
If I came on here and said that I don't think blacks should be allowed to marry whites because it violates my personal beliefs and traditions, that children are better off in homes where the parents are the same race, that interracial couples don't qualify as a real family in my mind, that interracial marriage is just another example of society caving in to pressure to be politically correct, would you consider me racist?
If I considered you a racist, would that actually make you a racist?
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.