Social I have been married for a year and a half...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry for inferring that . . . regardless you seemed to be using that less common practice to characterize the larger group of Christians.

Not my intention at all.

I was only trying to point out that such beliefs exist.
 
Lol...so textbook and predictable. ..i havehaven't lied once about your position.

You claim to be for SSM. This is true, right?

Look at every post of yours in this thread and all other threads regarding gay marriage. You state arguments In opposition to gay marriage. This is also an accurate assessment, correct?

So...please tell me how I'm distorting your position. ..

And don't cop out and say, "...this is pointless blah blah blah..."

Try again homie.

I dint argue against ssm...i argue against it being a civil right. That's how. Why can't you just acknowledge that? Oh that's right, you're busy trying to "get me" on something.
 
I would have more respect for you if you would just state your position and not dance with semantics. Your shtick is well documented and nobody believes it. I may be an asshole but if my feet are held to the fire, so to speak, I will state my position. The fact that you don't makes you an incredible hack.

I'm not really trying to convince you guys of anything. Think what you want. All I ask is that you respond to the arguments presented and not what you think I really think.
 
Well of course . . . because m52nickerson says so . . .

No, because allowing a boy into the Girls scouts will not cause massive problems. Nor will allowing SSM.

Sigh. The problem is the end result and special accommodations needed for many of these cases. Specifically the overnight trips and events where chaperones are required.

Those would be very minor, and with the parents of the child involved be even less than that.

Guess we just seem to be hearing about stuff more then . . .

Yes

Really? So each state prints their own currency? We all benefit from a National infrastructure supported by our taxes. The management of that infrastructure may be at different levels but it's ultimately supported by the exact same currency.

No each state does not print thier own currency, that was my point. Taking the bible passage literally one could argue that since the money is not printed by the an individual state they don't hav eto pay state taxes.

Too bad it's often taken out of context . . . but I get your point.

That is why the government does not get involved in saying which religious beliefs are correct and which are not.
 
Actually no I didn't bring it up. Quote it. Have you noticed that most of what you say is not truthful?

Okay, you did not bring it up. You just ran with it for many pages and multiple days.

Again I'm arguing that gay marriage is not a civil right nit that ssm shouldn't be allowed.

You are also arguing that it should not be made legal in by the courts. A position that you know would result in it not being made legal.

You have also been shown that it does fit the definition of a civil right and have yet to provide anything to show it is not. When I asked you how it was not a civil right you have no answer.

Why won't you acknowledge this? That would be the intellectually honest thing to do ya know.

I acknowlege that is what you are claiming, but I nor most people with brains are not going to believe it.
 
I'm not really trying to convince you guys of anything. Think what you want. All I ask is that you respond to the arguments presented and not what you think I really think.

...and people have responded to your arguments, over and over. When they do you claim they are calling you a bigot or saying you are hateful.
 
I dint argue against ssm...i argue against it being a civil right. That's how. Why can't you just acknowledge that? Oh that's right, you're busy trying to "get me" on something.

actually, considering the rights that come along with marriage in the United States, gay marriage IS a civil rights issue.
 
Okay, you did not bring it up. You just ran with it for many pages and multiple days.

So you once again accused me of something that wasn't true? Just want to get that on the record.

You are also arguing that it should not be made legal in by the courts. A position that you know would result in it not being made legal.

I actually don't know that. I think polls are showing that a majority of Americans support SSM.

You have also been shown that it does fit the definition of a civil right and have yet to provide anything to show it is not. When I asked you how it was not a civil right you have no answer.

Are we talking how things are legally or what is right, wrong, fair, or unfair regardless of what the law says?

I'm referring to the latter in which case I've provided plenty of arguments for why it shouldn't be considered a civil right.

I acknowlege that is what you are claiming, but I nor most people with brains are not going to believe it.

All I'm claiming is that I'm making a certain argument. You've acknowledged that I have been making this argument. Now you claim you're not going believe I'm making this argument? Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?
 
So you once again accused me of something that wasn't true? Just want to get that on the record.

Yes, I was wrong you did not bring it up first. That does not change my point, nor does it change the fact that argued it for quite a bit. There is still only one reason for that.

I actually don't know that. I think polls are showing that a majority of Americans support SSM.

Slowly, yes. That does not mean it going to come to a vote, or that it would in all states.

Are we talking how things are legally or what is right, wrong, fair, or unfair regardless of what the law says?

I'm referring to the latter in which case I've provided plenty of arguments for why it shouldn't be considered a civil right.

It is easy to find the definition of a civil right. So asking about what we are arguing is you just trying to get out of it. You have not provided a single argument against SSM being a civil right, other than to say it is not discimination, which was pointed out to be incorrect.

All I'm claiming is that I'm making a certain argument. You've acknowledged that I have been making this argument. Now you claim you're not going believe I'm making this argument? Do you even know what you're talking about anymore?

You are claiming that you are for SSM but spent almost this whole thread arguing against it. Somthing does not make sense. If you just thought it was not a civil rights issue you would not have spent so much energy. It is also telling that you say that the reason you support it is to stop arguing about it, yet here you are.
 
Just curious as to when inbreeding (incest) became wrong in biology. I mean incest led to all the life we see on this planet today and now it's bad? Clearly something changed. So when did biology change?

I'd say evolution leads to inconsistencies and ambiguity as to what's good or bad.:icon_idea
Inbreeding never became "wrong" in biology. I've not suggested that evolution or nature has a stance on the rightness or wrongness of inbreeding, that would be stupid. Nice false equivalency though.

As I said, there are instances in which it is necessary, conditions under which it is favorable, and conditions under which it is unfavorable. We see some populations with high inbreeding coefficients and others with lower ones, depending on conditions.
 
I'd say teen births are down due more to the fact that women go to college and have careers these days. We also have abortion on demand.
Nope. Abortions are rather difficult to get these days and both because of that, better sex ed, family planning, etc. abortions have been steadily declining for two decades.
 
I dint argue against ssm...i argue against it being a civil right. That's how. Why can't you just acknowledge that? Oh that's right, you're busy trying to "get me" on something.
Because you often change your argument mid-stream whenever your lack of logic and consistency is laid bare.
 
When did "gender harmony" become an argument against something being a civil right?
 
Almost 2000 posts, well over the 1k limit -- start a new thread to discuss further, locking this one down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top