NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



I said

Like I said, can you find where it says that the parents of the child must prove the child is willing? Easy question; are the words there or not? :shrug:

Just give it up.
You know you were wrong. All you need to do is try to use a little common sense.. of course I understand that flaming liberals find common sense hard to come by.

P.S. You now go on ignore becuase you are just too damn dumb to even try to have a conversation with.
Note: Even Nonno has not made my ignore list.. just saying

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I said

Like I said, can you find where it says that the parents of the child must prove the child is willing? Easy question; are the words there or not? :shrug:

Just give it up.
You know you were wrong. All you need to do is try to use a little common sense.. of course I understand that flaming liberals find common sense hard to come by.

P.S. You now go on ignore becuase you are just too damn dumb to even try to have a conversation with.
Note: Even Nonno has not made my ignore list.. just saying

Not going to answer the simple question? That's fine, I understand how disheartening it can be when you finally realize you jumped on something you thought you'd caught me on only to find out you read wrong

I'm fine with being kn your ignore list, since that means I won't heave to deal with you following me around the forums spouting hate at me anymore. You'll still be spouting it at other people but ah well :shrug:

Bye!

 

[bcp]

This message is hidden because UNA is on your ignore list.

 

[hvp05]

This message is hidden because UNA is on your ignore list.

UNA wins!


In other news, this thread is over. (Maybe.)

 

[bcp]

UNA wins!


In other news, this thread is over. (Maybe.)

not at all. UNA was unable to prove her lie.
I have no respect for liars. to make a mistake, certainly, to withdraw that mistake great. But to continue to try and make it look like they didnt lie in the first place?
I would rather be entertained at a gay wedding party than spend time with a known liar.

Since nothing the liar says can ever be trusted again, I have no choice but to just ignore the POS.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

This message is hidden because UNA is on your ignore list.

UNA wins!


In other news, this thread is over. (Maybe.)

W00t!

Sorry to keep bumping this thread everyone...I'm just too stubborn for my own good I'll behave now and ignore his last comment

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Studies don't exist for treating ALOT of " different but simillar thing(s) as equal" but we do.

So, find the study that shows the effects of committed same-sex relationships and compare those effects to the studies done over the centuries of marriage.

BTW...


...different but equal[/].

Find me a dictionary from prior to 1970 that ever said that.

Changing the definition because of perceived social justice does not make the understood definition change.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



Not "hard to accept", just doesn't matter. What is the difference between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship?

The sexes of the individuals involved, thus making it just two people as opposed to actual marriage.

If it were the same, there wouldn't be a discussion going on. If it were indistinguishable, there would be no reason for discussion.

And I didn't ask why you thought people got married to distract, it is a valid question. If the answer disn't matter than people wouldn't get married in the first place and there would be no govt recognition of it.

From a social point of view it is relevant. Since there is no requirement for a particular reason or reasons to have the government recognize a marriage, it is irrelevant to the discussion of legal recognition of marriage.

If you want to have the social discussion of why people get married, the list is as long as the list of people on earth. No two people get married for the exact same reason(s).

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



It is, but show me a 14 year old who has the maturity to make that decision...

You're mistaking emotion (maturity) with legality again. You say women (apparently only women) are "forced" into marriage, I say that does not pass the common sense test. Someone has to be engaged in the vows enough to sign the papers and agree. If they're under some kind of distress, they certainly have the right to express that, or there is a crime going on. More than just the marriage.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Studies don't exist for treating ALOT of " different but simillar thing(s) as equal" but we do.

So, find the study that shows the effects of committed same-sex relationships and compare those effects to the studies done over the centuries of marriage.

BTW...


...different but equal[/].

Find me a dictionary from prior to 1970 that ever said that.

Changing the definition because of perceived social justice does not make the understood definition change.

So, find the study that shows the effects of committed same-sex relationships and compare those effects to the studies done over the centuries of marriage.

I think you missed what I said. We treat a lot of Different but similar things as equal, why do you need studies for this different but similar relationship?

Find me a dictionary from prior to 1970 that ever said that.

Changing the definition because of perceived social justice does not make the understood definition change.

So now definitions of words aren't allowed to change? Then I hope you're not offend if I call you gay :shrug:

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Not "hard to accept", just doesn't matter. What is the difference between a same-sex relationship and an opposite-sex relationship?

The sexes of the individuals involved, thus making it just two people as opposed to actual marriage.

If it were the same, there wouldn't be a discussion going on. If it were indistinguishable, there would be no reason for discussion.

And I didn't ask why you thought people got married to distract, it is a valid question. If the answer disn't matter than people wouldn't get married in the first place and there would be no govt recognition of it.

From a social point of view it is relevant. Since there is no requirement for a particular reason or reasons to have the government recognize a marriage, it is irrelevant to the discussion of legal recognition of marriage.

If you want to have the social discussion of why people get married, the list is as long as the list of people on earth. No two people get married for the exact same reason(s).

*sigh* I never said they were the same rather that they are equal as in they should be treated equally. Why is this confusing?

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



It is, but show me a 14 year old who has the maturity to make that decision...

You're mistaking emotion (maturity) with legality again. You say women (apparently only women) are "forced" into marriage, I say that does not pass the common sense test. Someone has to be engaged in the vows enough to sign the papers and agree. If they're under some kind of distress, they certainly have the right to express that, or there is a crime going on. More than just the marriage.

It's often women...are you really going to argue THIS point now too?! And yes, they're legally allowed to report they signing against their will but I've heard of plenty of people who could have legally reported abuse an didn't...I think we usually call thy fear.

 

[This_person]

I think you missed what I said. We treat a lot of Different but similar things as equal, why do you need studies for this different but similar relationship?

I suspect the things we treat as similar but equal have equal effects on society even though they are only similar. Like a business selling cars and selling donuts each pays taxes and has tax breaks based on concepts that are equivalent to their business, even though their businesses are only similar.

So now definitions of words aren't allowed to change? Then I hope you're not offend if I call you gay :shrug:

Words sure can change in definition, if there's a reason.

I would be no more offended for you calling me gay than me calling you an old hag. I suggest each term is equally accurate for the person at hand, and means nothing to the other.

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



*sigh* I never said they were the same rather that they are equal as in they should be treated equally. Why is this confusing?

Because, for them to be equal they need to be the same. If they're different, they're different and should be treated as such unless the effect they have is the same. Something about them needs to be the same for them to be the same.

They're either the same, or they're not the same. We can reasonably agree they're not the same (as you say above). So, to be treated as equal yet not be the same, they must have the same effect to get the same treatment legally.

Thus, I ask you to show me the effect.

Why is this confusing?

 

[This_person]

Wirelessly posted



It's often women...are you really going to argue THIS point now too?! And yes, they're legally allowed to report they signing against their will but I've heard of plenty of people who could have legally reported abuse an didn't...I think we usually call thy fear.

How far are you going to take this tangent? It's not fair to call same-sex relationships something other than marriage because often women are afraid and get into traditional relationships out of that fear? Is that even an argument?

Willingness is a requirement to have a marriage recognized. Marriage without willingness is a crime of at least one sort or another (abuse, kidnapping, something). I'm finding it exceptionally difficult to find any way to relate that to the question at hand.

 

[UNA]

I suspect the things we treat as similar but equal have equal effects on society even though they are only similar. Like a business selling cars and selling donuts each pays taxes and has tax breaks based on concepts that are equivalent to their business, even though their businesses are only similar.

Because, for them to be equal they need to be the same. If they're different, they're different and should be treated as such unless the effect they have is the same. Something about them needs to be the same for them to be the same.

They're either the same, or they're not the same. We can reasonably agree they're not the same (as you say above). So, to be treated as equal yet not be the same, they must have the same effect to get the same treatment legally.

Thus, I ask you to show me the effect.

Why is this confusing?

Opposite sex marriage is between two consenting adults; one male and one female right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

Same sex marriage is between two consenting adults; two males or two females right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

I highlighted the ONLY difference so there are the things about them that are the same

Words sure can change in definition, if there's a reason.

I would be no more offended for you calling me gay than me calling you an old hag. I suggest each term is equally accurate for the person at hand, and means nothing to the other.

So there has to be a reason, I contend that there is a social reason to change the definition of marriage. You obviously don't and therefore will not accept the change as valid. Do I have this right?

How far are you going to take this tangent? It's not fair to call same-sex relationships something other than marriage because often women are afraid and get into traditional relationships out of that fear? Is that even an argument?

Willingness is a requirement to have a marriage recognized. Marriage without willingness is a crime of at least one sort or another (abuse, kidnapping, something). I'm finding it exceptionally difficult to find any way to relate that to the question at hand.

Wow...I have to hand it to you...you're good. The way you twisted what I ACTUALLY said into something you could actually respond too! You sure you're not a politician?

You're not playing fair here. If this is now your tactic I will not engage you further on this subject.

 

[This_person]

Opposite sex marriage is between two consenting adults; one male and one female right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

Same sex marriage is between two consenting adults; two males or two females right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

I highlighted the ONLY difference so there are the things about them that are the same

Very nice. Now, which of those reasons are mandated by law?

So there has to be a reason, I contend that there is a social reason to change the definition of marriage. You obviously don't and therefore will not accept the change as valid. Do I have this right?

If society wants to change the definition socially, that's one thing. What is the legal reason to change the legal definition?

Wow...I have to hand it to you...you're good. The way you twisted what I ACTUALLY said into something you could actually respond too! You sure you're not a politician?

You're not playing fair here. If this is now your tactic I will not engage you further on this subject.

What did I twist?

This discussion is on whether or not "marriage" includes same-sex couples for the purpose of legal recognition. What does anecdotal and illegal activity by some who somehow coerce females into marriage got to do with that?

I'm actually playing fair by keeping you to the subject.

 

[McGinn77]

If society wants to change the definition socially, that's one thing. What is the legal reason to change the legal definition?

Democracy, if the majority of people want the change, the change will (and is) change.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Opposite sex marriage is between two consenting adults; one male and one female right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

Same sex marriage is between two consenting adults; two males or two females right? It can be assumed that said adults see at least some benefit to their union (financial, stability, love...hopefully at LEAST love ). I think this is a pretty standard definition to opposite sex marriage and a pretty standard reason for the marriage.

I highlighted the ONLY difference so there are the things about them that are the same

Very nice. Now, which of those reasons are mandated by law?

So there has to be a reason, I contend that there is a social reason to change the definition of marriage. You obviously don't and therefore will not accept the change as valid. Do I have this right?

If society wants to change the definition socially, that's one thing. What is the legal reason to change the legal definition?

Wow...I have to hand it to you...you're good. The way you twisted what I ACTUALLY said into something you could actually respond too! You sure you're not a politician?

You're not playing fair here. If this is now your tactic I will not engage you further on this subject.

What did I twist?

This discussion is on whether or not "marriage" includes same-sex couples for the purpose of legal recognition. What does anecdotal and illegal activity by some who somehow coerce females into marriage got to do with that?

I'm actually playing fair by keeping you to the subject.

I'm done. You're to blind I guess to actually READ what I'm posting. Instead you take your assumptions about all the 'evil' liberals and apply them to me. I'm not engaging someone so willing to lump me into a group I actively avoid :shrug: have fun twisting other people's posts!

 

[This_person]

Democracy, if the majority of people want the change, the change will (and is) change.

"the change will (and is) change"

all my base are belong to you?