Originally posted by generalissimoThen why did you say, "original" definition? You prefer the "definition" now? Ok, I'm in Iraq right now where polygamy is not only legal, it's fairly common.
I was talking about marriage as being between a man and a woman, not marriage as defined by some old jewish guys 2000 years ago.
Or it that your real problem has nothing to do with definitions? It's that you want YOUR moral ideals forced on others.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI don't see how your iraqi example is relevant.
Then why did you say, "original" definition? You prefer the "definition" now? Ok, I'm in Iraq right now where polygamy is not only legal, it's fairly common.
Or it that your real problem has nothing to do with definitions? It's that you want YOUR moral ideals forced on others.
Im not forcing anything on anyone, and the marriage question has nothing to do with moral ideals, I don't have a problem with definitions, in the western world marriage has always been between a man and a woman, period.
Originally posted by generalissimoAlways, or just during a certain period that you prefer?
I don't see how your iraqi example is relevant.
Im not forcing anything on anyone, and the marriage question has nothing to do with moral ideals, I don't have a problem with definitions, in the western world marriage has always been between a man and a woman, period.
If it has nothing to do with forcing moral ideals, then I suppose you have no problem with same sex marriages?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAlways, or just during a certain period that you prefer?
Always, or just during a certain period that you prefer?
If it has nothing to do with forcing moral ideals, then I suppose you have no problem with same sex marriages?
it has been like that for a while now, and it seems to be working just fine, so why change it?
If it has nothing to do with forcing moral ideals, then I suppose you have no problem with same sex marriages?
problem? well, I just don't think it is legitimate, and nor does the majority of people.
Originally posted by telerionThe reference to bestiality occurs in the URL defintion to which you referred me. I have no such fix either for bestiality or sodomy; both are equally disgusting practices as far as I am concerned, but I do not doubt that there are advocates for the former, as well as the latter, perversion.
When I write something in English I have definitions from the
English dictionary in mind.
If you have a fix for beastiality though I suggest taking it somewhere else. This thread is about gay marriage.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYes, the Mormon Church especially. It is, after all, God's Will that His Minions should busy themselves with the earnest business of meddling in the affairs of others. One is tempted to think God must be one seriously bored Dude.
I can't speak for the other states, but with Prop 8 church organizations poured millions of dollars worth of commercials into California, most of which told blatent lies.
See, this is what I hate. Someone does a good job of lying to the people, the people are so easily fooled and then they say, "the people have spoken!"
As for the rest, well, the people make decisions based on the information they know on a subject. If some of the people choose to get all their information from Rush, Glenn, Sarah, Tea-baggers and tea leaves (the last probably being the least unreliable) and cast their votes accordingly, well, the people have still "spoken". They've spoken from ignorance, but spoken nonetheless. Democracy cannot survive long under conditions of such ditto-headed demagoguery, so it is regrettable.
Originally posted by generalissimoWhat exactly do you mean by "working just fine"?
[b]Always, or just during a certain period that you prefer?
it has been like that for a while now, and it seems to be working just fine, so why change it?
If it has nothing to do with forcing moral ideals, then I suppose you have no problem with same sex marriages?
problem? well, I just don't think it is legitimate, and nor does the majority of people.[/b]
Yes, the current situtation "works just fine" for heterosexuals who want to get married. But I guess they're all that matters, or what?
Or were you talking about our very positive statistics when it comes to divorce?
If gays were granted the right to marry you are free to "not think it's legitimate" That's the great thing about freedom. I'm sure you'd feel outraged if the gay community was pouring billions of dollars into demonizing straights and the government told you you can't marry a woman.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSorry parachuter but the fact is guys marrying other guys IS weird and unnatural and that's why the concept of legalizing gay marriages fails.
What exactly do you mean by "working just fine"?
Yes, the current situtation "works just fine" for heterosexuals who want to get married. But I guess they're all that matters, or what?
Or were you talking about our very positive statistics when it comes to divorce?
If gays were granted the right to marry you are free to "not think it's ...[text shortened]... llars into demonizing straights and the government told you you can't marry a woman.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamPaying people $millions per year to do nothing but play baseball or crack jokes on TV is weird and unnatural.
Sorry parachuter but the fact is guys marrying other guys IS weird and unnatural and that's why the concept of legalizing gay marriages fails.
Eating a hotdog or a hamburger is weird and unnatural (you don't want to know what they put in that stuff).
Spending your entire day looking at a computer screen and typing stuff on a keyboard is weird and unnatural.
Undergoing a root canal is weird and unnatural.
Pretty much everything we do in modern society is weird and unnatural. If you want natural, you need to figure out how people lived back in the Middle Ages (or earlier) and do likewise. I'm sure if you took those people into the future to see how we live, they'd think we were totally nuts.
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusNo, it was one of several possibilities. I was clearly referring to the first definition. You really can't get around this.
The reference to bestiality occurs in the URL defintion to which you referred me. I have no such fix either for bestiality or sodomy; both are equally disgusting practices as far as I am concerned, but I do not doubt that there are advocates for the former, as well as the latter, perversion.
You're just special pleading when you claim that the widely accepted definition is only bestiality. For evidence, consider the whole collection of recently struck down state "sodomy laws." These laws made illegal acts not only of bestiality but also of the other acts described in the dictionary link. Apparently your supposed widely accepted definition was not shared by states around this country for the past century or more.
Originally posted by Sam The ShamTo you, Sham. Fortunately what makes you feel uncomfortable is not a universal standard for what is unnatural, and it is certainly not the standard by which one judges the merits of gay marriage. Sorry, Sham, you're not the center of the universe.
Sorry parachuter but the fact is guys marrying other guys IS weird and unnatural and that's why the concept of legalizing gay marriages fails.
Anyway, homosexual acts occur frequently in the interactions of other animal species. To claim that homosexuality is unnatural is just naive.
Originally posted by telerionThe fact remains that the coupling of the term 'bestiality' with that of 'sodomy' occurs in the URL you directed me to read in support of your notion of the meaning of the latter term.
No, it was one of several possibilities. I was clearly referring to the first definition. You really can't get around this.
You're just special pleading when you claim that the widely accepted definition is only bestiality. For evidence, consider the whole collection of recently struck down state "sodomy laws." These laws made illegal acts not only ...[text shortened]... cepted definition was not shared by states around this country for the past century or more.
When I pointed this out to you you reacted by suggestting that I had a 'fix' on bestiality, a suggestion which is not only a gratuitous insult but also a logical fallacy of which you are evidently ignorant.
Originally posted by generalissimoHow is the fact that it is illegitimate now (in some countries) relevant for a discussion on whether or not it should be allowed? I'm sure the Nazis thought the Russian invasion into their Lebensraum was illegitimate.
[b]Always, or just during a certain period that you prefer?
it has been like that for a while now, and it seems to be working just fine, so why change it?
If it has nothing to do with forcing moral ideals, then I suppose you have no problem with same sex marriages?
problem? well, I just don't think it is legitimate, and nor does the majority of people.[/b]
Originally posted by Melanerpesthere is no comparison between gay marriage and the activities you just listed, furthermore, nobody is making any of these things official.
Paying people $millions per year to do nothing but play baseball or crack jokes on TV is weird and unnatural.
Eating a hotdog or a hamburger is weird and unnatural (you don't want to know what they put in that stuff).
Spending your entire day looking at a computer screen and typing stuff on a keyboard is weird and unnatural.
Undergoing a root ca ...[text shortened]... you took those people into the future to see how we live, they'd think we were totally nuts.
Originally posted by generalissimoThe next demand could well be government-funded research into possibility of allowing the catamite partner in the 'marriage' to bear offspring.
there is no comparison between gay marriage and the activities you just listed, furthermore, nobody is making any of these things official.