Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 5/13/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
Syllogism

A. Marriage is the standard of generally successfully functioning cultures, for human mating, generally consistent throughout the world, a matter of (self-evident) "Natural Law."

B. Mating, from any relevant discipline's study, is male-female, by clear ontological definition.

C. _________________________________________________.

C. Allowing gay marriage changes none of that. Straight people will still marry (or not) and have kids. Gay people may or may not marry and will still be incapable of having their own biological children.

With the understanding (not overstanding, but understanding in humility, taught by nature) of these principles, there is no "allowing" of anything other than marriage, as marriage. Changing the definitions in dictionaries and books of law does not change the true definition.

You can arrange for laws to allow you to drill a hole in the tree in your back yard and hold a ceremony with it, masturbate into it, lie beside it, have breakfast with it in the morning, but that does not mean you actually marry it, even if you say you do.

In the United States of America, we accurately recognize that our rights (and individual responsibilities) come not from man nor our government, but that we are endowed them by our Creator. We can not come up with a new way to slit someone's throat, so as not to call it murder and not violate one's "Right to Life." We can not come up with a new thing that is not according to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" and validly call it marriage.

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 5/15/2013 4:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 5/13/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
Syllogism

A. Marriage is the standard of generally successfully functioning cultures, for human mating, generally consistent throughout the world, a matter of (self-evident) "Natural Law."

B. Mating, from any relevant discipline's study, is male-female, by clear ontological definition.

C. _________________________________________________.

C. Allowing gay marriage changes none of that. Straight people will still marry (or not) and have kids. Gay people may or may not marry and will still be incapable of having their own biological children.

With the understanding (not overstanding, but understanding in humility, taught by nature) of these principles, there is no "allowing" of anything other than marriage, as marriage. Changing the definitions in dictionaries and books of law does not change the true definition.

You can arrange for laws to allow you to drill a hole in the tree in your back yard and hold a ceremony with it, masturbate into it, lie beside it, have breakfast with it in the morning, but that does not mean you actually marry it, even if you say you do.

In the United States of America, we accurately recognize that our rights (and individual responsibilities) come not from man nor our government, but that we are endowed them by our Creator. We can not come up with a new way to slit someone's throat, so as not to call it murder and not violate one's "Right to Life." We can not come up with a new thing that is not according to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" and validly call it marriage.

bad_luck doesn't care about or respect history and tradition.  He feels that institutions like marriage should be freely redefined to fit whatever the whim of the moment may be.

badluck(who bears a resemblence to Billy Murray) will be here in about an hour with Phil so we can do this all over again!!!

<<bad_luck doesn't care about or respect history and tradition.  He feels that institutions like marriage should be freely redefined to fit whatever the whim of the moment may be.>>

So, like slavery? Are you sure you want to hinge your argument on "history and tradition?"

Posted by seamar_116 on 5/15/2013 9:13:00 AM (view original):
<<bad_luck doesn't care about or respect history and tradition.  He feels that institutions like marriage should be freely redefined to fit whatever the whim of the moment may be.>>

So, like slavery? Are you sure you want to hinge your argument on "history and tradition?"

Another dumbass comparing the ability to marry to the ability to oh, I don't know, not get a beating for failure to work hard enough.

Please say that to the next angry black man you see.    And, once you've healed up from the beating you'll receive, let us know how it went. 

"No, Jim, you can't marry your boyfriend.   See you in court."





"Your name is Toby.  Now say your name!!!"

Yeah, basically the same reaction. 

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 5/15/2013 4:03:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/13/2013 6:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ArlenWilliam on 5/13/2013 5:40:00 PM (view original):
Syllogism

A. Marriage is the standard of generally successfully functioning cultures, for human mating, generally consistent throughout the world, a matter of (self-evident) "Natural Law."

B. Mating, from any relevant discipline's study, is male-female, by clear ontological definition.

C. _________________________________________________.

C. Allowing gay marriage changes none of that. Straight people will still marry (or not) and have kids. Gay people may or may not marry and will still be incapable of having their own biological children.

With the understanding (not overstanding, but understanding in humility, taught by nature) of these principles, there is no "allowing" of anything other than marriage, as marriage. Changing the definitions in dictionaries and books of law does not change the true definition.

You can arrange for laws to allow you to drill a hole in the tree in your back yard and hold a ceremony with it, masturbate into it, lie beside it, have breakfast with it in the morning, but that does not mean you actually marry it, even if you say you do.

In the United States of America, we accurately recognize that our rights (and individual responsibilities) come not from man nor our government, but that we are endowed them by our Creator. We can not come up with a new way to slit someone's throat, so as not to call it murder and not violate one's "Right to Life." We can not come up with a new thing that is not according to "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" and validly call it marriage.

Yet, gays are marrying today in, what, nine, ten states? The definition of the word has changed. Just like it changed in 1967 when interracial marriage was allowed. Just like it changed when marriage became primarily about love and not economics. Just like it changed when people started choosing their spouse instead of buying them or having the marriage arranged.

Tradition is great. You are free to have yours. But you don't get to decide what traditions other people value and participate in.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 11:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg2 on 3/29/2013 11:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 11:26:00 AM (view original):
Last time I checked, pre-teens, farm animals and oak trees can't join consensual relationships with adults.  

Tec, why does it bother you if the definition of something changes over time?  

It hasn't been a gradual change.  It was one thing for tens of thousands of years, and that was unquestioned and unchallenged.  Now, over the past 25-30 years or so, ever since the whole "political correctness" movement started, there's a demand to make it something else.

In the big picture, 25 years as opposed to tens of thousands of years makes it "impulsive".  Doing things impulsively is often not a good idea.

You mean like allowing interracial marriage?

Page 2.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 3/29/2013 11:52:00 AM (view original):
Was illegal in parts of the US before 1967.

Has the U.S. been around for tens of thousands of years?

I'm talking about human history, not U.S. history.

Is that really relevant, though? And does it matter that the definition of marriage will change? It won't change for your marriage. Or mine. Or any other heterosexuals. The only people this change will affect are homosexuals.

Page 4

Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:45:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/29/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/29/2013 12:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 3/29/2013 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Getting married makes people happy.  Why do you want to keep people from being happy?  If it doesn't affect you, or any heterosexual personally, what does it matter?

Marriage doesn't keep people happy.  Being in love with somebody makes people happy.  A legal certificate does not enhance that.

So you're saying marriage itself isn't important to you, just the love of the relationship?

Love without marriage is much more meaningful than a marriage without love.  Or the inclusion of a notarized piece of paper.

OK.

Does marriage matter to you? Would you be just as happy if you weren't allowed to marry your wife? Or does that piece of paper mean something?

I believe my relationship with my wife would be just as meaningful without a piece of paper.  If it wasn't, then there would be something fundamentally wrong with our relationship.

So if the piece of paper isn't a big deal, why does it matter if the definition changes?

Page 6.

I guess I could go on but I think I've proven that saying the same thing over and over again obviously makes you right.

Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2013 5:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/4/2013 5:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 4/4/2013 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/4/2013 4:47:00 PM (view original):
Not everybody believes that gay marriage is "making something right".  Just because you and bad_luck believe that does not necessarily make it so.

What would be wrong with allowing gay marriage?

Page 1 of this thread.  3/28/2013 9:28 PM

Also, page 2.  3/29/2013 11:11 AM

I forgot. It's much better to deny an entire group of people marriage rights than it is to alter the definition of a word. Again.

Random page hunt.

Page 42

Posted by bad_luck on 4/10/2013 12:12:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 4/9/2013 10:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by burnsy483 on 4/9/2013 9:06:00 PM (view original):
Read the Elton John link I posted earlier. He wants to call his partner his "husband." Its important to him.

husband ['h?zb?nd]

n

1. a woman's partner in marriage

Sorry, Elton.  That just not going to work for you.
 

Funny thing about definitions, they're easy to change.

Random page hunt.

Page 61