- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Those against gay marriage- you're dumb (long)
Posted on 6/14/15 at 11:42 am to novabill
Posted on 6/14/15 at 11:42 am to novabill
quote:Might wanna check Merriam-Webster, pal. What you say is factually incorrect according to the premier American English dictionary.
But to call them married is not correct without changing definitions.
2
Posted on 6/14/15 at 12:34 pm to ballscaster
This whole debate is over the word marriage (I don't care what the word was defined as/who it was intended to include for 1000s of years prior to the modern era).
If it wasn't about co-opting the word (as it is more commonly believed to mean in this day & age or trying to normalize their relationships) then gays would/should be completely fine with the term "civil union" being used for their relationships and the relationships of non-homosexuals in the eyes of the government. Changing it from marriage license to "civil union" license in city halls across the U.S. should satisfy them, but it won't.
This coming from a guy with a gay sister and cousin (who is married to his partner), both of whom I love and support. I have 0 problem with them being in commited, loving relationships to people of the same sex.
If it wasn't about co-opting the word (as it is more commonly believed to mean in this day & age or trying to normalize their relationships) then gays would/should be completely fine with the term "civil union" being used for their relationships and the relationships of non-homosexuals in the eyes of the government. Changing it from marriage license to "civil union" license in city halls across the U.S. should satisfy them, but it won't.
This coming from a guy with a gay sister and cousin (who is married to his partner), both of whom I love and support. I have 0 problem with them being in commited, loving relationships to people of the same sex.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 1:33 pm to pwejr88
God knows a person but does a person know god?
No. Not one person has ever spoken directly with god. You have no clue just what our creator expects of us. That's a fact. Not a belief.
The mental gymnastics it takes to see this as legitimate is mind boggling.
Following religious superstitious traditions handed down from bronze age people who had an extremely outdated view of the world... Seems legit. Since we still use bronze age concepts in every other thing we utilize in this world.
also a good reason to stop people from how they want to live their lives.
No. Not one person has ever spoken directly with god. You have no clue just what our creator expects of us. That's a fact. Not a belief.
The mental gymnastics it takes to see this as legitimate is mind boggling.
Following religious superstitious traditions handed down from bronze age people who had an extremely outdated view of the world... Seems legit. Since we still use bronze age concepts in every other thing we utilize in this world.
also a good reason to stop people from how they want to live their lives.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 4:04 pm to CMBears1259
quote:
If it wasn't about co-opting the word (as it is more commonly believed to mean in this day & age or trying to normalize their relationships) then gays would/should be completely fine with the term "civil union" being used for their relationships and the relationships of non-homosexuals in the eyes of the government. Changing it from marriage license to "civil union" license in city halls across the U.S. should satisfy them, but it won't.
Exactly my stance as well. I couldn't care less what two people do in their home. The fact that the collective of them are trying to change religious doctrine (I say this strictly in terms of wanting to be married in a church and not a courtroom) is what turns me off to their cause. Just like every other minktity group out there trying to promote their feelings, they seem like they won't be satisfied until they world burns. And if you don't believe what they want you to believe, you're ignorant...which just happens to be the very definition of ignorance.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 4:16 pm to ballscaster
You saying the definition was not changed to support this position?
quote:
But in their latest editions, the dictionaries have begun to switch sides—though until recently, no one seemed to have much noticed. The American Heritage Dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, and Webster's have all added same-sex unions to their definitions of marriage. * The right-wing Web site WorldNetDaily broke the news in March about Webster's, reporting that the dictionary had "resolved the argument" over gay marriage by applying the ancient term "to same-sex duos."
Posted on 6/14/15 at 4:56 pm to CMBears1259
quote:You've fallen into the same old trap of hypocrisy that defines the anti-gay side of this dialogue. Either it's just a word, and you'll have no problem letting them be defined as married, or its about way more than that, in which case you completely justify their fight.
If it wasn't about co-opting the word (as it is more commonly believed to mean in this day & age or trying to normalize their relationships) then gays would/should be completely fine with the term "civil union" being used for their relationships and the relationships of non-homosexuals in the eyes of the government.
Either way, you have no point. They are married, and they will be recognized as married.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 5:00 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 4:59 pm to novabill
quote:No, I'm saying that you're the ones trying to change the definition of marriage, not the other guys. The definition includes same sex marriage.
You saying the definition was not changed to support this position?
If changing the definition of marriage is so bad, why are you trying to hangs the definition of marriage? The definition of marriage has a long history of many changes, but I'm sure the one that happened to be in America in the 20th century is the single right one.
This is why the OP said the things that he said. What he said represents a reputation of ignorance that you people have earned. It is not a contrived reputation.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:07 pm to ballscaster
quote:
a reputation ignorance that
There it is. Was waiting on that. Didn't think it would be so soon after I made my comment.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:09 pm to ballscaster
quote:
No, I'm saying that you're the ones trying to change the definition of marriage, not the other guys. The definition includes same sex marriage.
Tell me and why the definition changed?
Please link to previous definitions.
I have no issue with what people do and who the do it with. However I believe there will be an attack on any term that denotes the traditional relationship between a man and woman. That is a term that people do not want to exist.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:12 pm to unbeWEAVEable
There what is? Your post was ignorant, and it aligns with the ignorances common on the anti-gay side of the dialogue. What's the problem?
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:15 pm to novabill
quote:Not of interest to me. I am not concerned with whether the dictionary definition of marriage aligns with anything. My reference to this pertained only to your such concern, which I found ironic since a person so fixated on the definition of marriage doesn't even know what the definition of marriage is. "The definition of marriage" is your baby not mine.
Tell me and why the definition changed? Please link to previous definitions.
quote:Always that "but."
I have no issue with what people do and who the do it with. However
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 5:27 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:32 pm to ballscaster
Sooooo you care as long it supports your narrative but the moment you get challenged you no longer care.
So what term would you agree to that would describe the historical man/woman marriage. Would you allow for such a word?
I doubt you would. Activist do not want a distinction.
So what term would you agree to that would describe the historical man/woman marriage. Would you allow for such a word?
I doubt you would. Activist do not want a distinction.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:42 pm to ballscaster
quote:
There what is? Your post was ignorant, and it aligns with the ignorances common on the anti-gay side of the dialogue.
Oooooohhhh nothing. Just keep doing what you're doing.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:47 pm to novabill
quote:It's your concern not mine. "Changing the definition of marriage" is your campaign. The non-retard side of the dialogue isn't the side who introduced this irrelevant point.
Sooooo you care as long it supports your narrative but the moment you get challenged you no longer care.
quote:Not sure I understand he question. Not sure I care. Remember, you're the one trying to ban something. You're the one who has to burn the calories in this dialogue.
So what term would you agree to that would describe the historical man/woman marriage. Would you allow for such a word?
quote:My favorite thing about people who aren't complete retards is that they can pluralize words that end in -ist.
Activist do not want a distinction.
This post was edited on 6/14/15 at 5:59 pm
Posted on 6/14/15 at 5:49 pm to unbeWEAVEable
Most anti-gay lesser-thans I know have no idea what the Stonewall Inn is or what the definition of marriage is. They are, by the definition of the word, ignorant regarding all matters queer.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 6:27 pm to ballscaster
Not a matter of banning something. I am all about freedom. I am not for taking any right from anyone. I am likely more a fan of freedom than you are. Just not a fan of changing things so people can feel better about themselves.
Changing the term for sams gender relationships does not make it the same as marriage. That is the agenda, to have everyone view ghem as tge same. They are not the same.
Changing the term for sams gender relationships does not make it the same as marriage. That is the agenda, to have everyone view ghem as tge same. They are not the same.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 6:51 pm to novabill
quote:Whether or not something should be banned is exactly the issue.
Not a matter of banning something
Posted on 6/14/15 at 6:58 pm to ballscaster
If it's not about your agenda/redefining a word then you should be fine with civil unions (I like how you completely ignored that part of my post) for all people who want to share in a loving relationship/tax/inheritance benefits, but you aren't are you? You have to have it called a marriage! I bet you ask any number of straight married couples if they care whether the government calls their relationship a civil union and they'd say they don't give a shite as long as religious affiliation can still call it a marriage.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 7:06 pm to CMBears1259
quote:Yes, because it is marriage.
If it's not about your agenda/redefining a word then you should be fine with civil unions (I like how you completely ignored that part of my post) for all people who want to share in a loving relationship/tax/inheritance benefits, but you aren't are you? You have to have it called a marriage!
You're the one who wants something banned, not me. You're the one who want to change the definition of marriage, not me. The agenda is yours, not mine.
quote:Irrelevant. The issue is whether or not citizens have the right to marry and be protected equally through due process, which, of course, they do (Amendment 14 Section 1).
I bet you ask any number of straight married couples if they care whether the government calls their relationship a civil union and they'd say they don't give a shite as long as religious affiliation can still call it a marriage.
Posted on 6/14/15 at 8:51 pm to ballscaster
What's wrong with everyone having civil unions and saving marriage for the church then?
Not trying to have anything (not once have I said squat about you being able have a committed relationship, in fact I've encouraged it) banned. You apparently missed that I have a gay sister and a gay cousin. The cousin and his partner are "married" and that's cool, but that doesn't mean I consider it a marriage. I do however, wholeheartedly, support their relationship/commitment to each other.
The current and most commonly accepted is man & woman. You and those of your persuasion are definitely the ones making a big deal. I have no problem changing it for everyone for purposes of recognition by the state and have offered a solution that the gay mafia refuses to accept.
at you continuing to try and flip this around on me. Yeah, it def my agenda
I'm sure a bunch of heteros were sitting around year ago had the slightest inclination to think this would ever become an issue. I can almost guarantee you that the opposite is true of a bunch of gays.
quote:.
You're the one who wants something banned, not me
Not trying to have anything (not once have I said squat about you being able have a committed relationship, in fact I've encouraged it) banned. You apparently missed that I have a gay sister and a gay cousin. The cousin and his partner are "married" and that's cool, but that doesn't mean I consider it a marriage. I do however, wholeheartedly, support their relationship/commitment to each other.
quote:
You're the one who want to change the definition of marriage, not me.
The current and most commonly accepted is man & woman. You and those of your persuasion are definitely the ones making a big deal. I have no problem changing it for everyone for purposes of recognition by the state and have offered a solution that the gay mafia refuses to accept.
quote:
The agenda is yours, not mine
at you continuing to try and flip this around on me. Yeah, it def my agenda I'm sure a bunch of heteros were sitting around year ago had the slightest inclination to think this would ever become an issue. I can almost guarantee you that the opposite is true of a bunch of gays.
Page 19 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News