Oh,
I'm Sorry...
Originally Posted by boardman
So here is the response:
What you wrote is in blue:
"So the societal institution was for a male and female to wed. Why didn't sons marry sons and daughters marry daughters in the "arranged marriages"?"
Because incest causes severe genetic damage. It is called "in-breeding" and Bible thumpers do it a lot. Did I really need to explain that?
Common knowledge, huh?
Yes. look it up. If you studied something other than the Bible, you would know that.
"No. But I won't have to. Incest and bestiality are illegal for perfectly good reasons. Only Bible thumpers make this type of ridiculous argument. As I said, when you have to make ridiculous statements, you have already lost the argument.
Please explain the perfectly good reasons. There are those that would disagree with whatever you come up with yet you would continue to discriminate against them."
Really? I need to explain the perfectly good reasons why incest and bestiality are illegal? Incest results in severe genetic damage. It is called "in-breeding" and apparently your family has been doing a lot of it. And bestiality is animal abuse - they can't really consent can they?.
"Do you deny that's coming?
Yes...Then you are an imbecile so I am pretty much done arguing with you but I will address what left here."
Speaking of imbeciles, how's the family? Any more like you with 75 IQs in the bunch? Gay marriage has been legal for YEARS now in the US (starting in Massachusetts) and for over a decade in other countries. Can you name one single state or country that legalized incest and bestiality as a result? The burden of proof is ON YOU to back up your dopey claim. And yet, you have NO evidence, do you?.
What about getting married to a dead person as a way of circumventing the law someway to gain certain benefits.
Explain how that would be done. Really. Give examples. Can you name one single state or country that has legalized marrying the dead as a result of gay marriage being legalized? The burden of proof is ON YOU to back up your dopey claim. And yet, you have NO evidence, do you? And how exactly do you get the consent of a dead person?
Maybe they want to tweak the meaning of the word marriage so that consent is no longer needed. Wow, that opens up an entirely new Pandora's box, doesn't it.
No, it doesn't. You are just pulling ridiculous bullshit out of your ass.
Can you name one single state or country that has elimnated consent to being married as a result of gay marriage being legalized? The burden of proof is ON YOU to back up your dopey claim. And yet, you have NO evidence, do you?
Once again, when you have to start making ridiculous comparisons, then you have lost the argument. And, I would further point out that since consent was often NOT required in the past, then society has ALREADY changed the definition of marriage and you don't seem to mind - unless it is changed to include gays. It's not about whether I mind or not about consent. It's about whether the Indian(dot not feather) minds. I have a lot of Indian friends, it's actually where a lot of my enlightenment comes from. They are decent people. They have found a way to respect and adapt to the change in society from the one many of them left yet still practice their own beliefs within their own homes and communities. When was the last time you saw an Indian rally demanding equality? They know they are already equal and don't need further validation. Now, tell one to his face that he is not equal and you will see a wrath you can't possibly imagine.
What the fuck are you talking about? What does Indian equality have to do with this? Are you trying to put words in my mouth to win an argument? Do you like to set up strawmen? Is this a debate technique they teach in Bible school?
Are you OK with that. If you are then we really have nothing to argue about. If you aren't then you really aren't as open minded as you claim to be. I'd say you are a either a follower, One that takes up the fight for the popular cause because it's popular not necessarily because it's right. Perhaps you are a simple narcissist who just like to argue because you know you are always right even when you aren't and this is the way you get validation.
There are plenty of guys on this forum who are like that. They stand up for gay rights for whatever reason then call each other dick suckers, cum guzzlers and the like as insults. It's like standing up for black equality and then calling someone else a N******** lover. Bunch of fucking hypocrites! Look, now you've got me sounding like WTF. I can actually see where he's coming from though. There's no arguing with idiots who don't respect another's argument. All you can do is point, laugh and have fun with it along the way
Once again, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to put words in my mouth to win an argument? Do you like to set up strawmen? Is this a debate technique they teach in Bible school?
"And the reason I argue with you is that you intend to do great harm to others - gay people. You need to be rebuked.
Please point out any of my statements that propose to do great harm to gays or any other people group for that matter. You are accusing me of something that just isn't there. Continuing to repeat it doesn't make it true, right?
I said earlier that I've had a change of heart about homosexuality. Did you miss that part? Obviously you did or you wouldn't continue to attack me as a gay hater."
You are opposed to gay marriage. THAT is the harm. What does "change of heart" about homosexuality mean? You don't want to imprison them? But you still want to deny them inheritance rights? And hospital visitation rights? And custody rights?
"You pose as if you simply want to be left alone, but you are seeking to use the law to deny equal rights to other consenting adults.
As are you. You just can't see through your hatred of me to understand it."
Bullshit, what equal right am I denying to other consenting adults? Explain that statement.
I asked you above what you would do when the majority of society (and the laws of society) uses the word "marriage" to describe gay unions on an equal basis with heterosexual unions. You completely skipped that question.
I have given a solution, twice, to solve the problem. Neither time did I quote scripture and my solution is based on fairness to everyone. Once again, my solution is to get the state out of the marriage business and let each group decide on their own definition. In your honest opinion, is that a viable solution?
My continued silly argument with you was intended to point out your own rage and disgust with anyone that does not think like you and that you are really not as open minded as you portray yourself to be. I think I proved my point.
Originally Posted by boardman
Your solution is government stays our of the marriage business? And to let each group decide their own definition?
What does that mean exactly?
Let's say you are a landlord and you have a gay tenant (unbeknownst to you). He gets married, his husband moves in and some time thereafter, your tenant dies. The husband claims the right to stay in the apartment for the rest of the lease, just alike a wife would in a straight marriage. But YOU want them out, because you don't define their relationship as a marriage.
So how do the courts decide who wins if government is not in the marriage business?
And to whom does government send pension death benefits if government is not in the marriage business?
SPELL OUT YOUR PLAN.
If you can.
Originally Posted by boardman
cuz that makes it lighthearted.
