[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To my righteous Christian friends:
I FULLY respect that YOU have a religion. Your religion has rules and beliefs and who am I to tell you what to believe? I support your right to believe as you wish and to practice YOUR religion in the way that gives you the best spiritual comfort.
But this is not a religious issue…
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. Have you even bothered to read this thread, or the previous Gay Marriage thread? Or any of the countless others before it?
I can think of exactly one person who argues this matter from a religious angle.
Very hard to take you guys seriously when your arguments start with three paragraphs of exposition to imaginary opponents. I thought us religious nuts were supposed to be the crazy ones? [/quote]
Didn’t know that a qualification for participating in THIS thread was to have read and digested previous threads, but yeah I’ve participated in a few gay marriage threads. Sloth calls people making rational arguments for equality bigots - it’s hard to forget THAT kind of irony.
But are you SERIOUSLY saying that Christians have NOTHING to say about gay marriage? SERIOUSLY?
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To my righteous Christian friends:
I FULLY respect that YOU have a religion. Your religion has rules and beliefs and who am I to tell you what to believe? I support your right to believe as you wish and to practice YOUR religion in the way that gives you the best spiritual comfort.
But this is not a religious issue…
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. Have you even bothered to read this thread, or the previous Gay Marriage thread? Or any of the countless others before it?
I can think of exactly one person who argues this matter from a religious angle.
Very hard to take you guys seriously when your arguments start with three paragraphs of exposition to imaginary opponents. I thought us religious nuts were supposed to be the crazy ones? [/quote]
Didn’t know that a qualification for participating in THIS thread was to have read and digested previous threads, but yeah I’ve participated in a few gay marriage threads. Sloth calls people making rational arguments for equality bigots - it’s hard to forget THAT kind of irony.
But are you SERIOUSLY saying that Christians have NOTHING to say about gay marriage? SERIOUSLY?
Well how about you guys go and take your beef up with them, then? Because over here at PWI, we have been putting forth nothing but rational, secular arguments for our side. If you’d like to take aim at one of the many, many secular arguments against extending marriage benefits to homosexuals, many of which have appeared, believe it or not, in this very thread, THIS one, not on some other website, we’ll be waiting.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
To my righteous Christian friends:
I FULLY respect that YOU have a religion. Your religion has rules and beliefs and who am I to tell you what to believe? I support your right to believe as you wish and to practice YOUR religion in the way that gives you the best spiritual comfort.
But this is not a religious issue…
[/quote]
No shit, Sherlock. Have you even bothered to read this thread, or the previous Gay Marriage thread? Or any of the countless others before it?
I can think of exactly one person who argues this matter from a religious angle.
Very hard to take you guys seriously when your arguments start with three paragraphs of exposition to imaginary opponents. I thought us religious nuts were supposed to be the crazy ones? [/quote]
Didn’t know that a qualification for participating in THIS thread was to have read and digested previous threads, but yeah I’ve participated in a few gay marriage threads. Sloth calls people making rational arguments for equality bigots - it’s hard to forget THAT kind of irony.
But are you SERIOUSLY saying that Christians have NOTHING to say about gay marriage? SERIOUSLY?
etc…
OOOOOOOPS… [/quote]
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
I remember an episode of the Twilight Zone where a lady was getting phone calls from her dead husband, because the phone line had fallen onto his grave. Maybe something like that has happened here at PWI and we are channeling GAL?
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling.
[/quote]
I see you’re still lacking facts and sources for your argument.[/quote]
Because I’m arguing religious-style : I don’t need either, I just talk about imaginary stuff and present it as a fact.
Said this :
Where are yours?[/quote]
Wikipedia is not a proper documented source. Sorry, if it doesn’t work in undergrad papers it does not work at all. Nevertheless, you yet to supply facts to your argument. But, I digress.
Fertilization consists in the union of the spermatozoon with the mature ovum (Gray’s Anatomy). In other words, the union of a male and a female sex cell to form a new individual (howstuffworks), or when the sperm and egg combine to create an embryo (Galan). This happens when a man delivers the sperm into the woman during coitus which then inseminates the mature ovum. The encouragement and protection of this reproductive coupling (male and female, and only male and female as that is the only reproductive coupling in humans) is the purpose of state sponsored rational marriage in order to achieve the ends of tax-paying responsible citizens. They want the person that supplied the sperm and the person that supplied the ovum to be in a permanent committed relationship with each other to raise children in the best environment possible: with both of the child’s biological parents under the same roof.
Yes, because they would die out because they can’t make babies is the same thing as calling for the death of queers. Genius. Talk about a false link bait.
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
I’m glad that more countries are getting into it. It’s good to leave back the mentality that homosexuality is wrong because…??[/quote]
because it benefits society on so many levels? Noooo that couldn’t be it. I wonder what it does for the greater good?
I know of many things it does that harm people. Shall I drag out the CDC statistics so we can view the sickest (literally) group of people in the nation? They have worse health than smokers or even alcoholics.
So what good is this again?
Why are we promoting this behavior?
Oh yeah that’s right because it makes about 1 1/2% of the population temporarily happy.
Got it![/quote]
Can you also share some statistics from the CDC on certain diseases and ethnic populations in the united states? If one of them stands out maybe we can pass a law to prevent them from getting married which will fix the problem…[/quote]
Comparing a lifestyle to ethnicity? Wow, that’s out there even for you. Ah…you probably didn’t read over your post before you hit send. Yeah that’s it, no problem.
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
The links posted were not secular.[/quote]
Except those aren’t our arguments…they are someone else’s arguments. You see the difference?
Actually, we DO have a constitutional right not to be interfered with in our pursuit of happiness, so long as it doesn’t violate the law. Last time I checked, being a homosexual doesn’t violate any FEDERAL laws (I’m sure there are many obscure local and state laws that outlaw homosexuality - right along with blowjobs, having sex with the lights on, any position other than missionary, or any number of “Christian influenced” attempts to legislate THEIR version of “morality”). If it were up to “popular opinion” about what laws to pass and not pass, then inter-racial couples never would have been granted the right to get married because of bigoted people like you. [/quote]
This is a mess, but in any event - no one is outlawing (or suggesting that we outlaw) homosexuality, and that is irrelevant to the public policy issue of gay marriage. However, you should check your facts - for example, federal discrimination laws do not extend to sexual orientation, so your basic premise isn’t even correct.
And, I’m not a bigot, and you have discredited yourself out of the gate by suggesting I am. Race is a different issue entirely, and miscegenation laws had to do with the invidious motive of perpetuating racial supremacy, not traditional/rational marriage. So, it’s apples and oranges.
Sure it would, because infterility is not static, and heterosexual marriage - even among those that are infertile - help promote the mission of marriage for those who are fertile. And yes, the pu8blic policy of marriage has everything to do with “offspring” - always has, in one form or another.
This has been explained at length. I am not about to hit “reset” just because you can’t be bothered to read the other thread.
No, it isn’t, because marriage is a positive right - a kind of entitlement - just like Medicare. The point is that al entitlements have public policy aims. Medicare’s aim is to assist elderly people with health care. Marriage’s aim is to reinforce child birthing and rearing by biological parents.
If a group falls outside the policy’s aim, it isn’t “discrimination” to exclude that group. Such is the case with gays and marriage, just as it is with young people and Medicare.
And you are arguing with yourself - I am making the secular case for marriage, I haven’t mentioned religion, and I have no reason to.
[quote]Edevus wrote:
Improve your trolling.
[/quote]
I see you’re still lacking facts and sources for your argument.[/quote]
Because I’m arguing religious-style : I don’t need either, I just talk about imaginary stuff and present it as a fact.
Said this :
Where are yours?[/quote]
Wikipedia is not a proper documented source. Sorry, if it doesn’t work in undergrad papers it does not work at all. Nevertheless, you yet to supply facts to your argument. But, I digress.
Fertilization consists in the union of the spermatozoon with the mature ovum (Gray’s Anatomy). In other words, the union of a male and a female sex cell to form a new individual (howstuffworks), or when the sperm and egg combine to create an embryo (Galan). This happens when a man delivers the sperm into the woman during coitus which then inseminates the mature ovum. The encouragement and protection of this reproductive coupling (male and female, and only male and female as that is the only reproductive coupling in humans) is the purpose of state sponsored rational marriage in order to achieve the ends of tax-paying responsible citizens. They want the person that supplied the sperm and the person that supplied the ovum to be in a permanent committed relationship with each other to raise children in the best environment possible: with both of the child’s biological parents under the same roof.
It’s quite rude to now jump into “This is about USA”. Obviously not an American, but I guess I can be happy that you didn’t notice before considering that English is my third language. [/quote]
Not really - the policy issue varies from country to country because of the different customs, culture and mores.
Then you should cuddle up with a book or two on the decline of the Roman empire - and, oh, here is a hint: if you don’t grasp what “bread and circuses” are about, don’t make a reference to them. Juvenal used the term in the pejorative to describe the frailty and silliness of a population who demanded ever more “goodies” from everyone else, and in doing so, contributed to their own decline.
As in, “bread and circuses” are not a good thing.
I didn’t say homosexuality was wrong, nor is my argument against gay marriage based on a position that it is wrong.
Thanks for posting that video of the old time Preacher. In a way he reminds me of one of the local Pastor’s where I live the guy has done more for our community than just about anyone else. He’s actually a lovable individual. But the Pastor in the video never once said that he wanted to kill all the gay people. He said that if you put all the homosexual men together in one area and all the lesbians in another area that they would eventually die out because they cannot reproduce because of their homosexuality So, he was trying to make a point.
But that somehow flew right over your head didn’t it?
What the Pastor does not realize is that gay men are perfectly capable of having sex with women. It’s just that they prefer other men.
A little talked about fact because it exposes the entire gay movement for the fraud that it really is!
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
The links posted were not secular.[/quote]
Except those aren’t our arguments…they are someone else’s arguments. You see the difference?
[/quote]
Its hard to believe that their “secular” arguments were contrived on their own merit and not just an alternative to the links above, which for debating purposes don’t work in the real world.[/quote]
And sufiandy jumps to the lead again!
Okay Kreskin, please explain to us how “for debating purposes” our secular arguments “don’t work in the real world.”
[/quote]
It’s part of Suiandy’s debating style. You put forth a well reasoned point and suffiandy responds with something on the order of “Nuh Uh.”
And that’s pretty much his argument from start to finish.
