Gay Marriage page 101

3390 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Yes Vika, promote pedophilia.

Wait, how’s she doing that? By saying that it’s okay to marry anything as long as you can prove they’re mature and reasonable adult legal citizens/legal immigrant? (lolcopy-paste)

That is exactly what you are doing when you make really ignorant posts like this.

What part of it is ignorant? The part where she said the immortal untruth that homosexual relationships aren’t all that different from heterosexual one?

I try to use logic with you and make you analyze the folly of your thinking,

Where exactly did you do this, again?

but you just can’t seem to change. I will keep hoping that you can change.

I’m noticing a distinct lack of response to her particular post, and more of a response to her… Vika-y-ness.

 
Flag Post

If you’d read her post properly, you’d realize she’s deliberately making a contradiction.

You can marry a child, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.

You can’t marry anyone or anything unless they’re legally deemed responsible for themselves. Children aren’t, neither are animals, and there’s no way they ever could be. Meaning guys like you and benu who say that if gays get married then the law will get lax on other kinds of sexual relationships are flat-out wrong.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Benu01:

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here
When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process). Now lets say I love my pet or child and want to marry them. Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right?

In a similar vein to the others who have posted here, I will say yes, providing you can prove they are a mature, responsible legal adult citizen (or seeking to apply for such status).

So in other words:

You can marry a child, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an animal, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.
You can marry an inanimate object, if you can prove they are a mature, responsible adult legal citizen/legal immigrant.

In each case, you have the responsibility, as prospective partners, of showing that both intended partners are legally adult, legally citizens (or prospective ones), and have sufficient mental maturity to meet the legal requirements of consent.

Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, already meet these basic requirements – standard base requirements for all adult contracts, marriage, employment, or otherwise. The onus is then on you, to prove that your ‘beloved other’ in this special case, meets the requirements. A battery of psychological tests may well be required. Good luck with those, in all of your cases – you will need it.

Yes Vika, promote pedophilia. That is exactly what you are doing when you make really ignorant posts like this. I try to use logic with you and make you analyze the folly of your thinking, but you just can’t seem to change. I will keep hoping that you can change.

Here, jake-o…
I think I’ll toss ya a bone

Boy, youze sure do need to use yer noggin’ a little more and yer bigotry a whooooole lot less.
YOU certainly do get sucked into some very BIG dumb-ass positions by a very small word….lol

“promote pedophilia”? ? ? WTF? Dood, ya really need to get a grip here.
Ya’ve done spun the needle on the “wack-0-meter” w/ that one.
BTW….it was Benu01 who brought up the “possibility”….
go chew on HIS ass for such “thinking”.

“ignorant posts”?
Mirror, mirror on the wall….
the shit I say just before I take a huge shit fall.
lol

 
Flag Post

Vika-y-ness, Tenco?

Do, please explain that one, won’t you?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Vika-y-ness, Tenco?

Do, please explain that one, won’t you?

My guess:

The wondrous ability to gather up all of his deliciously delectable shit,,,,
skewer it w/ a very pointed wit,,,
“roast” it over an open fiery spit,,,
serve it right back at him…non stop, no quit,,,
and have him say: What a sumptuous, “culinary” HIT.
LOL…. 0¿~

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

You would have to explain what about my argument is wrong, in order to get away with that definition, myTie. In other words, what about it, precisely, is ignorant.


EDIT@Karma

Thanks for that, it made me smile. However, I was mostly interested in Tenco’s particular definition. His post to Jhco also made me smile, but since he was stumbling over that particular ‘word’, I was hoping for a bit more accuracy as to what he meant. Hopefully its not as bad an opinion of me as a poster as MyTie’s given, but if it is, I’ll have to work on my arguments to correct that, won’t I?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Well, this is a discussion forum. Explaining things to one another is how it works. If you truly don’t get that, MyTie, why are you here in the first place? You are the fish out of water, if you don’t understand that explanation is at the root of this forum.

Also I would point out that a personal attack against me, is better placed on my profile shouts, than it is in the serious discussion forum itself. Tearing my arguments to shreds is fine and dandy. But attacking a poster directly, is actually against the rules the forum operates by. I am unclear if you feel the rules should apply to you or not, but it is certainly something to think about.

 
Flag Post

This forum has gone a long way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Vika-y-ness, Tenco?

Do, please explain that one, won’t you?

Basically how you are as a person, or at least how you word your posts and their contents.

I guess a synonym would by either personallity or maybe beliefs, I’m not too sure which.

Originally posted by vikaTae:Hopefully its not as bad an opinion of me as a poster as MyTie’s given, but if it is, I’ll have to work on my arguments to correct that, won’t I?

Oh Hells, no.

It’s mostly just an attempt at playful jab, similar to when I made a post that was about how theories don’t work that way and made a pseudo-copy of your would-be response, which was meant to be a nice-spirited satire, because that’s possible now.


Okay, maybe I should keep it simple… No offense ment, hipefully no offense taken.

Originally posted by MyTie:

I would define it slightly differently:

Vikayness: adj. A quality of character such that the subject is indiscernable from being totally and utter confused about something profoundly simple, or simply feigning ignorance.

Well I don’t know a clue about vikayness, so I guess you’re the expert here.

Originally posted by MyTie:

Example: I explained to him how to tie his shoes, but instead he just rolled around on the floor. Because of his vikayness, I can’t tell if he’s pretending to not get it, or if he’s just an idiot.

Wrong gender.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XxTheProtectorxX:

This forum has gone a long way.

Agreed. Can we keep the dumbass Urban Dictionary shit out of SD?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by XxTheProtectorxX:

This forum has gone a long way.

Agreed. Can we keep the dumbass Urban Dictionary shit out of SD?

Why the objection to much of any offering that can lend even a small element of perspective to the discussion?
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:But attacking a poster directly, is actually against the rules the forum operates by.

This is funny, coming from you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

This is funny, coming from you.

It all comes down to the difference between attacking a poster, and attacking an argument. Once you’re able to grasp the differences, it should be easier for you to attack arguments without attacking the posters directly. Then maybe we’ll see less of your tossing the argument aside and just going for the jugular on the poster.


Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Vika-y-ness, Tenco?

Do, please explain that one, won’t you?

Basically how you are as a person, or at least how you word your posts and their contents.

I guess a synonym would by either personallity or maybe beliefs, I’m not too sure which.

Thanks for replying, Tenco. I saw you were stumbling over the term, and that clears up a lot, what you actually meant :)

Also, pseudo-copy of my would-be response? Share please? . On my profile’s probably more appropriate, to save derailing this thread any further.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Basically how you are as a person, or at least how you word your posts and their contents.

I would say her Viky-ness (sp?) is the essence of her spunky demeanor and liberal leanings. That being said, when someone dislikes another person, they tend to find and attribute negative things to them, even if they’re not there.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
Originally posted by vikaTae:But attacking a poster directly, is actually against the rules the forum operates by.

This is funny, coming from you.

LOL
I’m not sure if “funny” is the word I’d choose (were I to be YOU).
Maybe, IRONIC?

I say that because while what she says above is pretty much the case….(I say “pretty much” because—and I’ll show why in my ad hominem thread—Zshadow prefers to see his “directives” as being GUIDELINES rather than RULES,,,,in fact, they are listed as guidelines).

NOW, why I say “ironic”.
vika is quite the proper “Dr. Jekyll” in rational, amiable discourse….for the most.
Yet, she is quite capable of summoning “Mr. Hyde” when his particular form of application of opinion is merited. Sure, the “merited” part is completely arguable….now isn’t it?

To say: But maaaaaa, he STARTED it….isn’t really all that good of an excuse. A natural, normal REASON,,,,yes. But, a good reason isn’t necessarily the same as a good EXCUSE. That said. Why not return shit w/ shit? Why not give in to baser instincts and lower oneself to the level of the other,,,,should such be the area either chosen by or limited to them?

Yeah, maybe we “shouldn’t”,,,
but, when did that ever stop most anyone from doing most anything they shouldn’t?
I think such is a factor that lends much credence to many here who argue that while we may be “thinking animal”,,,,,this doesn’t mean that such somehow magically separates us from the rest of the animal world….to the extend that we no longer ARE animals. We obviously aren’t able to allow our “thinking” control our behavior to levels much beyond “animal urges”.

Pro tip: vika has a tongue so sharp wielded by a wit that when used can cut in a manner that ya won’t even know it until ya start to bleed….the next day. I advise to refrain from running afoul of it…..lol JK…JK…JK (maybe?)

I can say the same for a few others here,,,
I don’t want vika to either feel I’m being overly harsh on just her,,,
or for her head to swell from what appears to be “praise”. LOL

 
Flag Post

Warning: I am about to drop a big o’l Hypothetical here

Emphasis on the “big old”. Your story has been used countless of times before, pretending it is a good argument against homosexual marriage, but it is just as well an argument against heterosexual marriage.

When a person dies, their spouse gets their property tax free (not including the death tax or many other taxes included in the funeral process).

Then when I die, my children receive my property inheritance tax free and the cycle can continue.

This is a separate argument, and entirely respectable. You are worried that marriages are performed purely for economical reasons, and I’m thinking a lot of them are. It can be suggested that all the economical benefits of a marriage should be removed, or that the government shouldn’t be involved in them. This is a very good point, but irrelevant to homosexual marriage.

Now lets say I love my pet

Who gets to say your pet loves you? Deeply? In the way humans do? How do you communicate with it? How do you know it wants to marry you? How do you know it understands the concept of marriage? A pet does not have the legal capacity to marry. You are suggesting a one-way relationship which does not exist as such in both heterosexual or homosexual marriages (alike).

or child

Your child communicates with you, but is not legally capable of understanding marriage. Invalid comparison, second time.

Well if the homosexuals can get married then I ought to be able to right?

This is an argument beyond any logical foundation. It suggests that bringing up homosexuals opens up the world to anything, but removes from the picture that heterosexuals currently can get married. It waves away even the possibility that the two types of marriages are alike, and that others are not. I hope I do not have to explain this any further.

So I get a bunch of people who feel the same way and stir up controversy claiming that I should have the right to marry who I please because this is America and the state should recognize it!

This is assuming, again, one-way relationships. It is so vastly different from homosexual relationships, I doubt you have the legal capacity to understand them.

To answer your question, its hypotheses like this that make people want to keep it illegal in order to prevent things that might come as a result

Nuh-uh. Hypotheses like these argue that the government should not promote marriages, not that heterosexual marriages are exempt from this ridiculous argument.

So it is illegal to marry someone from a different country?

Certain other reasons could suggest this is the best, but this is certainly not the case in all countries (if it is in some, I wouldn’t know).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Who gets to say your pet loves you? Deeply? In the way humans do? How do you communicate with it? How do you know it wants to marry you? How do you know it understands the concept of marriage? A pet does not have the legal capacity to marry. You are suggesting a one-way relationship which does not exist as such in both heterosexual or homosexual marriages (alike).

Gotta say I agree with this. Pets, in their own category, do not have the cognitive capability to consent to such a relationship. I read somewhere that they have the emotional cognition of about a 2-3 year old, and looking at my cat and my daughter when they were young, that makes sense.

Notwithstanding the fact that your pet doesn’t have the physical capability to consent to such a relationship…not only could they not effectively ward off such an attack with their small size, but they would not appreciate the physical trauma that would ensue.

So no, pets can’t consent to relationships with adults.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:
Originally posted by tenco1:

Basically how you are as a person, or at least how you word your posts and their contents.

I would say her Viky-ness (sp?) is the essence of her spunky demeanor and liberal leanings.

That too.

Also it’s spelled “Vika-y-ness,” anything else is sompletely different.

 
Flag Post

Gay Marriage should be allowed. Don’t bible thump me now. Why?

1) The book was written over 1000 years ago.
2) In that same Bible, it says not to kill your fellow humans. However, people still go around abusing and killing homosexuals. So basically, if you’re with the Bible, you’re breaking your own law.

Those in the LGBTQ community have done nothing to deserve the hate that people put towards us. All we have done is try to live our lives the way that heterosexuals do. We want the same rights that heterosexuals do. Are who we are hurting you any?

Proud Gay

 
Flag Post

The book was written over 1000 years ago.

And?

In that same Bible, it says not to kill your fellow humans. However, people still go around abusing and killing homosexuals. So basically, if you’re with the Bible, you’re breaking your own law.

You are making quite the leap from someone who sees marriage as one man, one woman and someone who actively commits hate crimes.

 
Flag Post

There are people 100 years ago, and even today that would oppose many male female marriages. Marriage has been defined by various cultures over several years. America is not a society of majority, it’s one of independent individuals. If you don’t want the government telling you how your church should or shouldn’t decide its beliefs, you should respect churches, societies, and individuals who have a different view or belief than you that doesn’t effect yours at all. The same laws that protect you and your liberties should protect others and that should make you happy, not angry.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

The book was written over 1000 years ago.

And?

In that same Bible, it says not to kill your fellow humans. However, people still go around abusing and killing homosexuals. So basically, if you’re with the Bible, you’re breaking your own law.

You are making quite the leap from someone who sees marriage as one man, one woman and someone who actively commits hate crimes.

Your comments aren’t exactly stating anything.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

There are people 100 years ago, and even today that would oppose many male female marriages. Marriage has been defined by various cultures over several years. America is not a society of majority, it’s one of independent individuals. If you don’t want the government telling you how your church should or shouldn’t decide its beliefs, you should respect churches, societies, and individuals who have a different view or belief than you that doesn’t effect yours at all. The same laws that protect you and your liberties should protect others and that should make you happy, not angry.

Agreed. However, the reverse is true. If you want government not to define marriage as something that is against someone’s view on it, it shouldn’t be defined against anyone’s view on it. What I’m saying is, if it is wrong to define marriage as between a man and a woman, because that runs contrary to how homosexuals see it, it should be equally wrong to define marriage as between a man and a man, or a man and a woman. Marriage, like it or not, has deep roots in various religions, for reasons that should be obvious. If you don’t want religious people defining what that ceremony is to you, then it is also wrong to define what their religious ceremony means to them. The only logical conclusion, is for government not to define marriage at all. Think about it, if the only ways to actively define marriage are going to run offensively contrary to various sections of the populous, and it is not only possible to leave marriage undefined, but unnecessary to define it, the best solution is to leave it undefined. What homosexuals should be pushing for is for the deregulation and de-subsidization of the entire association. Who is government to define our relationships and give handouts to those relationships, anyway?