Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Mathieu · Feb 25, 2004, 05:22 pm

Well I think this is not about if we should or not legislate, but how long can we divert people from the real issues by talking about this ....

I think pretty much everyone here think the same way about this , am I right ?

Leopard · Feb 25, 2004, 05:38 pm

the 'real' issues being those of national imperialism, the next election, oil, the degradation of the environment, the plight of minorities in this country, the current state of abysmal affairs of our education system, the horrendous taxation we are forced to endure, deficit spending, the decline of jobs/wages in this country, ....

what exactly are the real issues? and how are all the above issues (including gay marriage) related? Perhaps THAT is the real issue....

oops, just got my attention diverted by yet another showing of janet Jackson's Breastacle.... what were we talking about again?

michael

OdieWon · Feb 25, 2004, 09:30 pm

:rolleyes: I think this is an interesting issue indeed. I personally believe that homosexuality IS immoral. However several folks have made reference to the FREEDOM that Americans enjoy to do as they please.

This freedom that we have must be defended. Unfortunately this does mean that we have to stop when we begin to step on someone else's freedom when excercising our own.

I can't honestly say (my opinion changed a little after reading this thread) that I think a Constitutional Ammendment would be in order. I think it would violate the rights of these gay Americans.

What's happening is that Mr. Bush and other folks are trying to stop people from the symptom, not the problem. These folks are just excercising their rights as Americans. If it is immoral we have to take another approach on that because it isn't directly wronging another or violating the rights of another.

But I should mention that because I believe it to be morally wrong, I am particularly concerned when they have to make a huge spectacle of it in public and on television. I don't give my wife a 5 second frencher every time I get excited in public, nor should they it is just poor form. Children need to understand how things work both morally and physically. But children learn in steps, not all at once by seeing these people on television in the news doing there thing with a big VICTORY kiss on national TV.

I believe it should stop, but I believe that legal action isn't the way. It starts in the home with the teachings of parents (mainly by their ACTIONS). We are wasting a good deal of money on this mess right now because the moral state of America is in the crap house and has been for YEARS. Now suddenly everyone wants it to stop.

This is childish.

Odie

Leopard · Feb 25, 2004, 09:53 pm

OdieWon,
exactly, if there is somoe sort of 'moral' problem in society, then society will take care of it - unfortunately our government is so easily manipulated and has soooo much power that it is 'easier' to lobby your favorite official to enact a law, make a regulation, or possibly even amend the constitution to 'illegalize' the 'symptom, as you say.... this still doesn't address the problem... and is pure laziness and is in itself 'immoral' - trampling on other peoples rghts to enforce your view...

michael

lcswoosh · Feb 27, 2004, 02:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,)
:rolleyes: I think this is an interesting issue indeed. I personally believe that homosexuality IS immoral. However several folks have made reference to the FREEDOM that Americans enjoy to do as they please.

This freedom that we have must be defended. Unfortunately this does mean that we have to stop when we begin to step on someone else's freedom when excercising our own.

I can't honestly say (my opinion changed a little after reading this thread) that I think a Constitutional Ammendment would be in order. I think it would violate the rights of these gay Americans.

What's happening is that Mr. Bush and other folks are trying to stop people from the symptom, not the problem. These folks are just excercising their rights as Americans. If it is immoral we have to take another approach on that because it isn't directly wronging another or violating the rights of another.

But I should mention that because I believe it to be morally wrong, I am particularly concerned when they have to make a huge spectacle of it in public and on television. I don't give my wife a 5 second frencher every time I get excited in public, nor should they it is just poor form. Children need to understand how things work both morally and physically. But children learn in steps, not all at once by seeing these people on television in the news doing there thing with a big VICTORY kiss on national TV.

I believe it should stop, but I believe that legal action isn't the way. It starts in the home with the teachings of parents (mainly by their ACTIONS). We are wasting a good deal of money on this mess right now because the moral state of America is in the crap house and has been for YEARS. Now suddenly everyone wants it to stop.

This is childish.

Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Do you mean, watching gay couples kiss, as in probably on the news, about San Francisco? Ok, let's analyze this. Have never even had the possibility to marry before. Probably a significant portion fighting for the right to do it for quite some time (the first couple was together for over fifty years and have probably been fighting for it just as long). Is that no reason to be excited?

I don't understand what you're saying? That homosexuality is a learned behavior? You said symptoms, so it's a disease, then? They've found difference in brain reaction times between heterosexuals and homosexuals (which is something that cannot be learned). So, no matter what parents teach, it's not going to stop people from being gay.

I am a VERY strong believer, and activist for gay marriage. But hey...I am gay.

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

mooseboy84 · Feb 27, 2004, 04:38 am

is just me, or do most "gay" people come from hetro sexuals? i htink that is a yes.

i keep hearing the ludicrous statement that gay marriages ruins familys.... i could say that not allowing gays to marry has ruined familys. how many gay men and women got married and try to supress that they were gay and in the closet. then they later got divorced and went to being gay. im sure that ruined alot of families more than letting gay people marry in the first place.

like i said in the other gay marriage post, this is a non issue that george w bush has brought up because all his other issues have failed. if gay people want to get married or adopt kids they should be able to. gay marriage will not affect your taxes, it will not fix neighborhood schools and will not affect the number of troops dying over seas. when all else fails, bush and his cronies fall back on good ol' prejudice and hatred to get votes.

Impenitent · Feb 27, 2004, 11:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mooseboy84,)
is just me, or do most "gay" people come from hetro sexuals? i htink that is a yes.

i keep hearing the ludicrous statement that gay marriages ruins familys.... i could say that not allowing gays to marry has ruined familys. how many gay men and women got married and try to supress that they were gay and in the closet. then they later got divorced and went to being gay. im sure that ruined alot of families more than letting gay people marry in the first place.

like i said in the other gay marriage post, this is a non issue that george w bush has brought up because all his other issues have failed. if gay people want to get married or adopt kids they should be able to. gay marriage will not affect your taxes, it will not fix neighborhood schools and will not affect the number of troops dying over seas. when all else fails, bush and his cronies fall back on good ol' prejudice and hatred to get votes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

bush didn't bring it up... a few renegade judges in taxachuchetts decided to make it legal there... then the flamers started popping up everywhere... they did it themselves and the vast majority of americans back bush on this one...

marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...

Mathieu · Feb 27, 2004, 11:49 am

We'll take them as political refugees in Canada ...

Leopard · Feb 27, 2004, 12:01 pm

Impenitent:
marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...

who cares about the definition of marriage... its the fact that government has associated certain benefits and priviledges with marriage that is the problem. If government were out of the marriage business, there wouldn't be an issue: let churches define for themselves who they will 'allow' to be married, and other folks can form whatever contracts they want also.

Why is it a problem to treat ALL citizens equally in the 'eyes of the law'? How can you rationalize giving tax benefits to certain folks just because of their choice in joining households/lives and not to others? It is PURELY an attempt at social manipulation, which the government has no business in doing. The ability of people (religious groups, churches, lobbyists, special interests, etc to influence government has destroyed and weakened our individuality and freedoms...

michael

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 27, 2004, 12:38 pm

I don't understand why Bush and other won't just say what they mean: they want the bible definition of marriage to be in the constitution.

Impenitent · Feb 27, 2004, 12:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
Impenitent:
marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...

who cares about the definition of marriage... its the fact that government has associated certain benefits and priviledges with marriage that is the problem. If government were out of the marriage business, there wouldn't be an issue: let churches define for themselves who they will 'allow' to be married, and other folks can form whatever contracts they want also.

Why is it a problem to treat ALL citizens equally in the 'eyes of the law'? How can you rationalize giving tax benefits to certain folks just because of their choice in joining households/lives and not to others? It is PURELY an attempt at social manipulation, which the government has no business in doing. The ability of people (religious groups, churches, lobbyists, special interests, etc to influence government has destroyed and weakened our individuality and freedoms...

michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage

lcswoosh · Feb 27, 2004, 03:22 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case.

Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.

terstorm · Feb 27, 2004, 03:29 pm

I think divorce has destroyed the institution of marriage. Thanks Britney Spears!

Impenitent · Feb 27, 2004, 04:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case.

Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

your ad hominems do not benefit you

if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage

to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage

lcswoosh · Feb 27, 2004, 05:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case.

Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

your ad hominems do not benefit you

if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage

to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.

Impenitent · Feb 28, 2004, 12:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case.

Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

your ad hominems do not benefit you

if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage

to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

logic? simple...

marriage is A

gay marriage is NOT A

A is NOT A?

changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage

lcswoosh · Feb 28, 2004, 12:45 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case.

Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

your ad hominems do not benefit you

if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage

to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

logic? simple...

marriage is A

gay marriage is NOT A

A is NOT A?

changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>That's not logic. I didn't say try to justify your words with bigotry and ignorance.

marriage = the union of two people.

Does that mean marriage will be destroyed? No. Does that mean there won't be marriages between a man and a woman? No. Please, learn a decent argument.

Impenitent · Feb 28, 2004, 12:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,)
No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

logic? simple...

marriage is A

gay marriage is NOT A

A is NOT A?

changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote>That's not logic. I didn't say try to justify your words with bigotry and ignorance.

marriage = the union of two people.

Does that mean marriage will be destroyed? No. Does that mean there won't be marriages between a man and a woman? No. Please, learn a decent argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

learn some very simple logic... the law of non-contradiction...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction

marriage=the union of a man and a woman

to change the participants in the definition, changes the definition

tman_ndsu08 · Feb 28, 2004, 01:07 am

who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)?

There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.

Impenitent · Feb 28, 2004, 01:31 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,)
who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)?

There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented...

Feb 25, 2004, 05:38 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	the 'real' issues being those of national imperialism, the next election, oil, the degradation of the environment, the plight of minorities in this country, the current state of abysmal affairs of our education system, the horrendous taxation we are forced to endure, deficit spending, the decline of jobs/wages in this country, .... what exactly are the real issues? and how are all the above issues (including gay marriage) related? Perhaps THAT is the real issue.... oops, just got my attention diverted by yet another showing of janet Jackson's Breastacle.... what were we talking about again? michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 25, 2004, 09:53 pm	#24 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	OdieWon, exactly, if there is somoe sort of 'moral' problem in society, then society will take care of it - unfortunately our government is so easily manipulated and has soooo much power that it is 'easier' to lobby your favorite official to enact a law, make a regulation, or possibly even amend the constitution to 'illegalize' the 'symptom, as you say.... this still doesn't address the problem... and is pure laziness and is in itself 'immoral' - trampling on other peoples rghts to enforce your view... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 27, 2004, 02:45 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (OdieWon,) :rolleyes: I think this is an interesting issue indeed. I personally believe that homosexuality IS immoral. However several folks have made reference to the FREEDOM that Americans enjoy to do as they please. This freedom that we have must be defended. Unfortunately this does mean that we have to stop when we begin to step on someone else's freedom when excercising our own. I can't honestly say (my opinion changed a little after reading this thread) that I think a Constitutional Ammendment would be in order. I think it would violate the rights of these gay Americans. What's happening is that Mr. Bush and other folks are trying to stop people from the symptom, not the problem. These folks are just excercising their rights as Americans. If it is immoral we have to take another approach on that because it isn't directly wronging another or violating the rights of another. But I should mention that because I believe it to be morally wrong, I am particularly concerned when they have to make a huge spectacle of it in public and on television. I don't give my wife a 5 second frencher every time I get excited in public, nor should they it is just poor form. Children need to understand how things work both morally and physically. But children learn in steps, not all at once by seeing these people on television in the news doing there thing with a big VICTORY kiss on national TV. I believe it should stop, but I believe that legal action isn't the way. It starts in the home with the teachings of parents (mainly by their ACTIONS). We are wasting a good deal of money on this mess right now because the moral state of America is in the crap house and has been for YEARS. Now suddenly everyone wants it to stop. This is childish. Odie<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Do you mean, watching gay couples kiss, as in probably on the news, about San Francisco? Ok, let's analyze this. Have never even had the possibility to marry before. Probably a significant portion fighting for the right to do it for quite some time (the first couple was together for over fifty years and have probably been fighting for it just as long). Is that no reason to be excited? I don't understand what you're saying? That homosexuality is a learned behavior? You said symptoms, so it's a disease, then? They've found difference in brain reaction times between heterosexuals and homosexuals (which is something that cannot be learned). So, no matter what parents teach, it's not going to stop people from being gay. I am a VERY strong believer, and activist for gay marriage. But hey...I am gay. http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Feb 27, 2004, 04:38 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
mooseboy84 Molten Ash Location: Cognitive Dissonance Posts: 60	is just me, or do most "gay" people come from hetro sexuals? i htink that is a yes. i keep hearing the ludicrous statement that gay marriages ruins familys.... i could say that not allowing gays to marry has ruined familys. how many gay men and women got married and try to supress that they were gay and in the closet. then they later got divorced and went to being gay. im sure that ruined alot of families more than letting gay people marry in the first place. like i said in the other gay marriage post, this is a non issue that george w bush has brought up because all his other issues have failed. if gay people want to get married or adopt kids they should be able to. gay marriage will not affect your taxes, it will not fix neighborhood schools and will not affect the number of troops dying over seas. when all else fails, bush and his cronies fall back on good ol' prejudice and hatred to get votes. <<because i f**kin said so>>™

Feb 27, 2004, 11:43 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (mooseboy84,) is just me, or do most "gay" people come from hetro sexuals? i htink that is a yes. i keep hearing the ludicrous statement that gay marriages ruins familys.... i could say that not allowing gays to marry has ruined familys. how many gay men and women got married and try to supress that they were gay and in the closet. then they later got divorced and went to being gay. im sure that ruined alot of families more than letting gay people marry in the first place. like i said in the other gay marriage post, this is a non issue that george w bush has brought up because all his other issues have failed. if gay people want to get married or adopt kids they should be able to. gay marriage will not affect your taxes, it will not fix neighborhood schools and will not affect the number of troops dying over seas. when all else fails, bush and his cronies fall back on good ol' prejudice and hatred to get votes.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> bush didn't bring it up... a few renegade judges in taxachuchetts decided to make it legal there... then the flamers started popping up everywhere... they did it themselves and the vast majority of americans back bush on this one... marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 25, 2004, 05:22 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	Well I think this is not about if we should or not legislate, but how long can we divert people from the real issues by talking about this .... I think pretty much everyone here think the same way about this , am I right ?

Feb 25, 2004, 09:30 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
OdieWon Sedimentary Rock Location: South Dakota Posts: 10	:rolleyes: I think this is an interesting issue indeed. I personally believe that homosexuality IS immoral. However several folks have made reference to the FREEDOM that Americans enjoy to do as they please. This freedom that we have must be defended. Unfortunately this does mean that we have to stop when we begin to step on someone else's freedom when excercising our own. I can't honestly say (my opinion changed a little after reading this thread) that I think a Constitutional Ammendment would be in order. I think it would violate the rights of these gay Americans. What's happening is that Mr. Bush and other folks are trying to stop people from the symptom, not the problem. These folks are just excercising their rights as Americans. If it is immoral we have to take another approach on that because it isn't directly wronging another or violating the rights of another. But I should mention that because I believe it to be morally wrong, I am particularly concerned when they have to make a huge spectacle of it in public and on television. I don't give my wife a 5 second frencher every time I get excited in public, nor should they it is just poor form. Children need to understand how things work both morally and physically. But children learn in steps, not all at once by seeing these people on television in the news doing there thing with a big VICTORY kiss on national TV. I believe it should stop, but I believe that legal action isn't the way. It starts in the home with the teachings of parents (mainly by their ACTIONS). We are wasting a good deal of money on this mess right now because the moral state of America is in the crap house and has been for YEARS. Now suddenly everyone wants it to stop. This is childish. Odie

Feb 27, 2004, 11:49 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Mathieu Igneous Magma Location: Montreal Posts: 216	We'll take them as political refugees in Canada ...

Feb 27, 2004, 12:01 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Leopard Propertarian Posts: 568	Impenitent: *marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...* who cares about the definition of marriage... its the fact that government has associated certain benefits and priviledges with marriage that is the problem. If government were out of the marriage business, there wouldn't be an issue: let churches define for themselves who they will 'allow' to be married, and other folks can form whatever contracts they want also. Why is it a problem to treat ALL citizens equally in the 'eyes of the law'? How can you rationalize giving tax benefits to certain folks just because of their choice in joining households/lives and not to others? It is PURELY an attempt at social manipulation, which the government has no business in doing. The ability of people (religious groups, churches, lobbyists, special interests, etc to influence government has destroyed and weakened our individuality and freedoms... michael Take on the responsibility to be free

Feb 27, 2004, 12:38 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	I don't understand why Bush and other won't just say what they mean: they want the bible definition of marriage to be in the constitution.

Feb 27, 2004, 12:47 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,) Impenitent: *marriage is marriage... the secularists will not succeed in changing the definition...* who cares about the definition of marriage... its the fact that government has associated certain benefits and priviledges with marriage that is the problem. If government were out of the marriage business, there wouldn't be an issue: let churches define for themselves who they will 'allow' to be married, and other folks can form whatever contracts they want also. Why is it a problem to treat ALL citizens equally in the 'eyes of the law'? How can you rationalize giving tax benefits to certain folks just because of their choice in joining households/lives and not to others? It is PURELY an attempt at social manipulation, which the government has no business in doing. The ability of people (religious groups, churches, lobbyists, special interests, etc to influence government has destroyed and weakened our individuality and freedoms... michael<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 27, 2004, 03:22 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case. Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.

Feb 27, 2004, 03:29 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
terstorm Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 60	I think divorce has destroyed the institution of marriage. Thanks Britney Spears! <span style='color:blue'>Things Fall Apart---the centre cannot hold</span> Storm

Feb 27, 2004, 04:08 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) they care about the definition... they will not be satisfied with "civil unions" and they can have those... they want to destroy the institution of marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case. Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> your ad hominems do not benefit you if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 27, 2004, 05:20 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case. Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> your ad hominems do not benefit you if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.

Feb 28, 2004, 12:35 am	#36 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case. Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> your ad hominems do not benefit you if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> logic? simple... marriage is A gay marriage is NOT A A is NOT A? changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 28, 2004, 12:45 am	#37 (permalink) (top)
lcswoosh Backed by WMD Location: Iowa Posts: 34	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Ummm....you are hands-down, the most ignorant person I've seen on these forums. Civil unions are legal in ONE state, and not recognized in any other states. That's not helping your case. Gay marriage will not destroy the institution of marriage at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> your ad hominems do not benefit you if you listen to the politicians, they are willing to grant civil unions as most of the society but they will not change the definition of marriage to change the meaning of marriage will destroy marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> logic? simple... marriage is A gay marriage is NOT A A is NOT A? changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>That's not logic. I didn't say try to justify your words with bigotry and ignorance. marriage = the union of two people. Does that mean marriage will be destroyed? No. Does that mean there won't be marriages between a man and a woman? No. Please, learn a decent argument.

Feb 28, 2004, 12:59 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (lcswoosh,) No it won't. You can NOT put logic behind that statement. Because there isn't any. And it's only broadening the definition, it's not like it's stopping straights from marrying.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> logic? simple... marriage is A gay marriage is NOT A A is NOT A? changing the meaning of marriage destroys marriage<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>That's not logic. I didn't say try to justify your words with bigotry and ignorance. marriage = the union of two people. Does that mean marriage will be destroyed? No. Does that mean there won't be marriages between a man and a woman? No. Please, learn a decent argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> learn some very simple logic... the law of non-contradiction... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction marriage=the union of a man and a woman to change the participants in the definition, changes the definition "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 28, 2004, 01:07 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
tman_ndsu08 BANNED Posts: 5,021	who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)? There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.

Feb 28, 2004, 01:31 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tman_ndsu08,) who's definition is that? Yours? The bibles? This country's (if GW had his way)? There is nothing wrong with your logic...but your original definition is the source of the argument.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> that is the definition ever since the concept of marriage was invented... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...