Both Sides Say Ireland Has Voted to Legalize Gay Marriage

You mean the link where they lump boyfriends/girlfriends in with husbands and wives to try get the numbers they want?

Mmm, yeah, I would prefer a site that isn't obviously trying to get a predetermined outcome.

Aren't you "lumping boyfriends and girlfriends" in with "husbands and wives" with the LGBT numbers? Yes, yes you are.

???

I've been speaking in generalities. I don't recall posting any numbers.

Oh I see...you were making claims with absolutely no evidence to back you up. Thanks for admitting that. :lol:


Mmm, and here I was being nice for not slamming you for making a stupid mistake.

THere are two facts I base my opinion on.

1. Men and Women are different and have different roles to play in child rearing. A child without both is missing out compared to a child with both.

2. THe Gay Community is all screwed up.


IMO, this is not going to work out the way you libs think.



Did the Duggars' reality show help you form your opinions, or was it Honey Boo Boo? Just curious.


Personal observation.

Who told you that men and women are the same and that the Gay Community is fine?
 
It means your entire argument is based on a lie.

Ironic!


Not really, Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.



Same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states, and the majority of the country supports it. It seems it's time for you to move on or move out.

Argumentum ad populum, logical fallacy.

Just because you are winning the legal battle, does not mean your lie is the truth.


Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest



You repeating the same silliness changes nothing.
 
There is no doubt that this country will have legalized same sex marriage. Not one.

Once a culture starts accepting depravity and perversion it doesn't stop until that culture falls into the dustbin of history. Just like all the others.
 
It means your entire argument is based on a lie.

Ironic!


Not really, Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.



Same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states, and the majority of the country supports it. It seems it's time for you to move on or move out.

Argumentum ad populum, logical fallacy.

Just because you are winning the legal battle, does not mean your lie is the truth.


Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest



You repeating the same silliness changes nothing.


Just speaking the truth.

I can see why you need to dismiss it. YOur argument is based on a lie.
 


Not really, Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Only one being dishonest here is you.

Marriage always has been a state contract and the state has had the ability to change the terms of the contract over time.

When this nation was founded women were considered to be property and not allowed to even own property in their own right. It wasn't until 1900 when it became legal in all states.

States banned interracial marriage and that was only overturned in 1967.

Why are you fallaciously pretending that marriage has never changed in the "entire existence of this nation"?


Women "being considered property" does not change the fact that marriage was about "ONe Man, One Woman". It is a completely irrelevant to the discussion. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

The ban on Interracial Marriage did not claim that a black man and a white woman (or visa versa) who went though the marriage process was not a marriage, it just made it illegal. This does not alter the definition of marriage either. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

THe relationship between men and women, the role of women in society, all this has changed.

But the definition of marriage has not.

Until now.

Under false pretense.

Does the fact that you have to lie to make your case not raise any red flags in your mind?

The definition of marriage has changed and you were given proof of that. It wasn't between a man and woman. It was between a man and his property originally.

You don't get to be the only decider of what is the "definition" of marriage. The states and the courts can change the definition as they see fit.

The only "false pretense" here is yours.

NO, you tried to support your lie, and I pointed out why your support was flawed.

I am not the decider of the definition. I am merely pointing out the last 230 years of history.

YOu, personally or as the group, lib, do not have the power to change history.

You can lie about it, and you are, and it is working.

I am just speaking the truth.

Ironic coming from an incessant liar.

The facts are irrefutable that states have redefined marriage over the last 230 years and only a liar like yourself would deny those facts.

But great job on destroying your own credibility.
 
There is no doubt that this country will have legalized same sex marriage. Not one.

Once a culture starts accepting depravity and perversion it doesn't stop until that culture falls into the dustbin of history. Just like all the others.

Assumes facts not in evidence.
 
Only if prediction means pulling random thoughts out of your ass and typing them up on a message board.

I gave you links...unlike you that have provided nothing but your "ass facts". Gays, in the United States, have been marrying in MA for over a decade. In other countries for almost two decades. Where are your "predictions" coming true?

You mean the link where they lump boyfriends/girlfriends in with husbands and wives to try get the numbers they want?

Mmm, yeah, I would prefer a site that isn't obviously trying to get a predetermined outcome.

Aren't you "lumping boyfriends and girlfriends" in with "husbands and wives" with the LGBT numbers? Yes, yes you are.

???

I've been speaking in generalities. I don't recall posting any numbers.

Oh I see...you were making claims with absolutely no evidence to back you up. Thanks for admitting that. :lol:


Mmm, and here I was being nice for not slamming you for making a stupid mistake.

THere are two facts I base my opinion on.

1. Men and Women are different and have different roles to play in child rearing. A child without both is missing out compared to a child with both.

Studies say your opinion is just that, your opinion. There is no difference in the outcomes of the children of straights and the children of gays. None. Our kids are fine. Worry about the kids of divorce and single parents...they're the most fucked up, poor things.

2. THe Gay Community is all screwed up.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of 'em stink. You've provided nothing but ass facts and opinion.
 
Not really, Marriage, for the entire existence of this nation, has meant :ONe man, One woman.

Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Only one being dishonest here is you.

Marriage always has been a state contract and the state has had the ability to change the terms of the contract over time.

When this nation was founded women were considered to be property and not allowed to even own property in their own right. It wasn't until 1900 when it became legal in all states.

States banned interracial marriage and that was only overturned in 1967.

Why are you fallaciously pretending that marriage has never changed in the "entire existence of this nation"?


Women "being considered property" does not change the fact that marriage was about "ONe Man, One Woman". It is a completely irrelevant to the discussion. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

The ban on Interracial Marriage did not claim that a black man and a white woman (or visa versa) who went though the marriage process was not a marriage, it just made it illegal. This does not alter the definition of marriage either. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

THe relationship between men and women, the role of women in society, all this has changed.

But the definition of marriage has not.

Until now.

Under false pretense.

Does the fact that you have to lie to make your case not raise any red flags in your mind?

The definition of marriage has changed and you were given proof of that. It wasn't between a man and woman. It was between a man and his property originally.

You don't get to be the only decider of what is the "definition" of marriage. The states and the courts can change the definition as they see fit.

The only "false pretense" here is yours.

NO, you tried to support your lie, and I pointed out why your support was flawed.

I am not the decider of the definition. I am merely pointing out the last 230 years of history.

YOu, personally or as the group, lib, do not have the power to change history.

You can lie about it, and you are, and it is working.

I am just speaking the truth.

Ironic coming from an incessant liar.

The facts are irrefutable that states have redefined marriage over the last 230 years and only a liar like yourself would deny those facts.

But great job on destroying your own credibility.

Your "facts" do not show what you claim they show.

Increasing equality for women did not redefine the meaning of the word "marriage".

Laws against interracial marriage limited one group of people from marrying another. THe law did not define the word "marriage" to mean that a marriage could only occur between people of the same race. It just made some mixes against the law.

Marriage has always been in America, between one man and one woman.

You are the one lying. You and yours.
 
You mean the link where they lump boyfriends/girlfriends in with husbands and wives to try get the numbers they want?

Mmm, yeah, I would prefer a site that isn't obviously trying to get a predetermined outcome.

Aren't you "lumping boyfriends and girlfriends" in with "husbands and wives" with the LGBT numbers? Yes, yes you are.

???

I've been speaking in generalities. I don't recall posting any numbers.

Oh I see...you were making claims with absolutely no evidence to back you up. Thanks for admitting that. :lol:


Mmm, and here I was being nice for not slamming you for making a stupid mistake.

THere are two facts I base my opinion on.

1. Men and Women are different and have different roles to play in child rearing. A child without both is missing out compared to a child with both.

Studies say your opinion is just that, your opinion. There is no difference in the outcomes of the children of straights and the children of gays. None. Our kids are fine. Worry about the kids of divorce and single parents...they're the most fucked up, poor things.

2. THe Gay Community is all screwed up.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of 'em stink. You've provided nothing but ass facts and opinion.

1. That's counter intuitive. The bandwagon effect is strong right now. I'll be curious to see what results studies find in ten years.

2. My opinions are indeed, just my opinions. At least I'm not lying about the meanings of words to make my case.
 
Only one being dishonest here is you.

Marriage always has been a state contract and the state has had the ability to change the terms of the contract over time.

When this nation was founded women were considered to be property and not allowed to even own property in their own right. It wasn't until 1900 when it became legal in all states.

States banned interracial marriage and that was only overturned in 1967.

Why are you fallaciously pretending that marriage has never changed in the "entire existence of this nation"?


Women "being considered property" does not change the fact that marriage was about "ONe Man, One Woman". It is a completely irrelevant to the discussion. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

The ban on Interracial Marriage did not claim that a black man and a white woman (or visa versa) who went though the marriage process was not a marriage, it just made it illegal. This does not alter the definition of marriage either. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

THe relationship between men and women, the role of women in society, all this has changed.

But the definition of marriage has not.

Until now.

Under false pretense.

Does the fact that you have to lie to make your case not raise any red flags in your mind?

The definition of marriage has changed and you were given proof of that. It wasn't between a man and woman. It was between a man and his property originally.

You don't get to be the only decider of what is the "definition" of marriage. The states and the courts can change the definition as they see fit.

The only "false pretense" here is yours.

NO, you tried to support your lie, and I pointed out why your support was flawed.

I am not the decider of the definition. I am merely pointing out the last 230 years of history.

YOu, personally or as the group, lib, do not have the power to change history.

You can lie about it, and you are, and it is working.

I am just speaking the truth.

Ironic coming from an incessant liar.

The facts are irrefutable that states have redefined marriage over the last 230 years and only a liar like yourself would deny those facts.

But great job on destroying your own credibility.

Your "facts" do not show what you claim they show.

Increasing equality for women did not redefine the meaning of the word "marriage".

Laws against interracial marriage limited one group of people from marrying another. THe law did not define the word "marriage" to mean that a marriage could only occur between people of the same race. It just made some mixes against the law.

Marriage has always been in America, between one man and one woman.

You are the one lying. You and yours.

Do you even understand what the term contract means and how it works?

Marriage contracts bind those who sign them to all of the laws that regulate them. When this nation was founded those laws treated women as property under a marriage contract.

As I told you earlier the states and the courts have been constantly redefining state marriage contracts throughout the history of this nation. The age limits have changes, the number of participants have changed, the status of the participants have changed, the ownership of property has changed, the races of the people have changed, access to contraception has changed.

So you are lying when you claim that nothing has changed in 230 years.
 
Women "being considered property" does not change the fact that marriage was about "ONe Man, One Woman". It is a completely irrelevant to the discussion. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

The ban on Interracial Marriage did not claim that a black man and a white woman (or visa versa) who went though the marriage process was not a marriage, it just made it illegal. This does not alter the definition of marriage either. But I guess you have to throw something out there.

THe relationship between men and women, the role of women in society, all this has changed.

But the definition of marriage has not.

Until now.

Under false pretense.

Does the fact that you have to lie to make your case not raise any red flags in your mind?

The definition of marriage has changed and you were given proof of that. It wasn't between a man and woman. It was between a man and his property originally.

You don't get to be the only decider of what is the "definition" of marriage. The states and the courts can change the definition as they see fit.

The only "false pretense" here is yours.

NO, you tried to support your lie, and I pointed out why your support was flawed.

I am not the decider of the definition. I am merely pointing out the last 230 years of history.

YOu, personally or as the group, lib, do not have the power to change history.

You can lie about it, and you are, and it is working.

I am just speaking the truth.

Ironic coming from an incessant liar.

The facts are irrefutable that states have redefined marriage over the last 230 years and only a liar like yourself would deny those facts.

But great job on destroying your own credibility.

Your "facts" do not show what you claim they show.

Increasing equality for women did not redefine the meaning of the word "marriage".

Laws against interracial marriage limited one group of people from marrying another. THe law did not define the word "marriage" to mean that a marriage could only occur between people of the same race. It just made some mixes against the law.

Marriage has always been in America, between one man and one woman.

You are the one lying. You and yours.

Do you even understand what the term contract means and how it works?

Marriage contracts bind those who sign them to all of the laws that regulate them. When this nation was founded those laws treated women as property under a marriage contract.

As I told you earlier the states and the courts have been constantly redefining state marriage contracts throughout the history of this nation. The age limits have changes, the number of participants have changed, the status of the participants have changed, the ownership of property has changed, the races of the people have changed, access to contraception has changed.

So you are lying when you claim that nothing has changed in 230 years.


Polygamy has never been legal in America.

To equate minor changes in age limits to changing from "ONe man, one woman" is ridiculous.

The increasing legal rights of women in society AND marriage is not a change to the meaning of the word:Marriage.

Laws against interracial marriage did not address the meaning of the word, they just made some marriages illegal. They did not claim that the word marriage "always meant one man and one woman of the same race". Such bullshit sophistry would have been laughed at and rightly so.

Advances in contraception did not change the meaning of the word Marriage.
 
Polygamy has never been legal in America.

Polygamy was only outlawed in the United Sates in the mid 19th century. Prior to that it was quite common.

The increasing legal rights of women in society AND marriage is not a change to the meaning of the word:Marriage.

So now you have reduced yourself to squirming about semantics.

Where was it legally defined as being only persons of opposite sexes at the inception of this nation?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top