5/15/2013 10:55 AM
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 5:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 4/2/2013 5:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 4/2/2013 5:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by burnsy483 on 4/2/2013 4:53:00 PM (view original):
Mike, I'd like to argue with you, but if you're going to disrspectful and compare gay people marrying to someone marrying a toaster, I don't see the point.
I'll debate whatever you want to debate.    BL has laid out some guidelines as to why SS marriages should be allowed.    His guidelines work with toaster marrying.

If you have better reasons, and it's hard not to, throw them out.
Why don't you throw out a reason that we shouldn't allow gay marriage?
Can I use tec's "traditional marriage" argument?

It's as good as your Big Four.
I guess you could. You probably don't want to considering how ineffective it has been in court.

Random page hunt

Page 23

5/15/2013 10:56 AM
If you avoid the 40ish pages on "Is homosexuality a choice?" tangent, I defy you to find a post where BL hasn't repeated the same idea over and over. 
5/15/2013 11:15 AM

If one keeps saying the same thing over and over, doesn't that eventually make it true?

5/15/2013 11:18 AM
Evidently someone thinks so.

But, again, I don't think it's his fault.   He simply fails to retain any previous discussion.
5/15/2013 11:32 AM
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.


So how do you explain to gay atheists why they can't get married in our secular state?  A religious argument is not good enough.

And how do you explain non-human animals, elements of "nature," exhibiting homosexual behavior?  Are they violating "the laws of nature and nature's God" in spite of being a part of that nature?  How does that happen?  They don't have, in many cases, the intelligence to make that sort of decision, they just act on instinct.  Where did that instinct come from?

5/15/2013 11:33 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 11:18:00 AM (view original):
Evidently someone thinks so.

But, again, I don't think it's his fault.   He simply fails to retain any previous discussion.
Glad you're back, mister pot. We've filled 160+ pages. There isn't a person here who hasn't been repeating themself over and over again for a while, including you.
5/15/2013 11:39 AM

To my credit, I've taken a few breaks.   But, also to my credit, I don't keep asking people to repeat themselves.   Can you say the same for either of those?

5/15/2013 11:41 AM
"It doesn't affect you.  What's the harm?"
5/15/2013 11:42 AM
That has to be page 3.
5/15/2013 11:45 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 5/15/2013 11:39:00 AM (view original):

To my credit, I've taken a few breaks.   But, also to my credit, I don't keep asking people to repeat themselves.   Can you say the same for either of those?

You get zero credit. You're still participating.
5/15/2013 11:55 AM
Sorry, much like you're not in charge of handing out "rights" or determining what "traditions" are acceptable, you are also not in charge of giving out credit.

I took it and that's that. 
5/15/2013 12:03 PM
Oh ok, then I'll take credit too.
5/15/2013 12:06 PM
For being a repetitive snoozefest?

CREDIT GRANTED!!!
5/15/2013 12:09 PM
Such a snoozefest that you're still here after 160 pages. Credit taken.
5/15/2013 12:12 PM
Why do you care that he's still here after 160 pages?  It doesn't affect you.  What's the harm?
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.