Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

[EverCurious]

I too am curious about this "bonding" restriction.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skylar]

Ah, so if it didn't happen since Marky was born, it's of no impotence. Got it, the thinking of an infant.

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

'Full of bullshit' according to who? Your entire argument has devolved into insisting that you and only you get to define words, entire religions, the law or the constitution.

But you don't exclusively or authoritatively define any of those things. As the dictionary and 50 of 50 States recognizing same sex marriage demonstrate elegantly.

Remember, just because you ignore reality and pretend it doesn't exist....doesn't mean we're obligated to pretend with you.

 

[80zephyr]

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?

Intercourse. Its why when marriages weren't consummated, they could be dissolved.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

Tell what difference?

Mark

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

 

[80zephyr]

Ah, distraction. I told you of other things allowed during our history, why are you not defending them?

Looks like this "infant" got the best of you.

Mark

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark

Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.

Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.

 

[80zephyr]

See? You cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and pederasty and pedophilia.

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.

Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"

IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark

Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.

Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.

You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.

Mark

 

[Skylar]

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.

You're citing nothing but your opinion. And then insisting that your opinion must be reality. Every argument you've made is founded on this same, stupid fallacy.

Do you have anything to offer us save you insisting that you're an infallible arbiter of everything? Words, the constitution, religion, the law, anything you're discussing?

Because you can't even explain why I would ignore the dictionary and instead believe you. Let alone why any rational person would accept you as an infallible arbiter of...anything

 

[Skylar]

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark

Says you, citing yourself. But you insist that definitions don't change and ignore the dictionary. So clearly you citing you is inadequate to carry your argument.

Do you have anything beyond insisting that you are an infallible arbiter? Because if that's the extent of your argument, you've already proven yourself wrong.

You are putting words in my mouth. If you want to debate, do so rationally.

Mark

You've insisted that definitions don't change. The dictionary contradicts you. So you ignore the dictionary and cling to your opinion.

Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words.

Or ignore the Supreme Court on the Constitution. Or ignore the law on legal definitions? Or ignore any link on Islam save the one that you have deemed is 'reality'?

You've never been able to explain that.

 

[Syriusly]

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.

Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.

Marriage laws

Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.

 

[EverCurious]

Well that's certainly a new one, I don't recall consummation ever being brought into a SSM debate before. It's been a dead idea since at least the 70s, not even hard rights want it anymore...

 

[Carla_Danger]

You're free to believe that all you wish but you still can't stop gay people from raising their biological and adoptive children.

A gay couple cannot have a biological child. I don't have to "stop them". Nature does that.

Mark

Gay couples will just use the same avenue as infertile couples. You still can't do a thing about it.

Lol. Gay couples? No such thing. One(or the other) might get pregnant, but NOT as a couple. Like I said, I don't have to "do a thing" about it. Its already done.

Mark

Says you. Again, your entire argument has degenerated into ignoring the law, the dictionary, the Supreme Court or anything you don't agree with....and pretending it doesn't exist.

With same sex marriage legal in 50 of 50 States, how's that working out for you?

I don't have to pretend anything. Reality doesn't have to be explained. George Orwell was right, of course. The denial of reality like in the book 1984, is happening now. And the left will be the reason for our demise.

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.
George Orwell

And sadly, it is going to lead to this:

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.
George Orwell

Mark

Yikes!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

And what, exactly, is said "bonding", Marky?

Intercourse. Its why when marriages weren't consummated, they could be dissolved.

Mark

Ah, so a male without a penis, say from cancer, and a female can never be married? Interesting.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The infant, Marky, doesn't know Islam then or now, obviously.

Lol. Tell you what Paint, why don't you mosey on over to the middle East, then report back to me to show me how tolerant they are?

Mark

Not a problem, nor does it matter since Sharia law allows for other faiths which means, Marky is wrong, again.

Lol. Your "link" was like a link to the Catholic church. Full of bullshit.

Here, read and learn about their "tolerance".

Chapter 1: Beliefs About Sharia

Mark

Try again, Marky. My source are Muslims: The Rights of Non-Muslims in Islam (All parts) - The Religion of Islam

And history: History of the Jews under Muslim rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My link talks about reality. Yours talks about bullshit. But, you already knew that.

Mark

I see, so Muslims and historians don't know Islam but little Marky Mark does? Got it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.

Feel free to cite those laws- here are some sites you can refer to- curiously which don't mention consummation.

Marriage laws

Meanwhile- couples who are unable to have sex- are completely able to legally marry. Quadrapalegics can marry. Even prisoners sentenced to life in prison can marry.

Marky must have learned both law and religion, while in the tub with his sister.

 

[Bonzi]

I had both in my life.
Both pretty incompetent in my opinion.

Mother was there for the long haul at least.
Dad got remarried. Saw him a week during the summer, but, otherwise. Nothing. No calls. No letters.

He died a few years back. Got nothing in the way of inheritance which I really don't care about, because, honestly, biologically he was my father, but was not a Dad. My step father was no better.

 

[EverCurious]

You raise a good point on that. To his credit, and perhaps my also limited visitation, I never realized it, but my bio-father is a complete racist against Mexican's. The last time I spoke to him, and in fact part of why I didn't bother to call him again, he and a "posse" had "run a Mexican family" out of town...

 

[bodecea]

Shrugs....a rational person could. The dictionary certainly can.

And that, Zephyr...is why we use you as the arbiter of the meaning of all words. Or any, for that matter.

In the context of the conversation, my words are correct. When someone uses "history" as a debate tactic, he better be able to defend all of history.

Mark

Except that they're not. You assumption that the definitions of words can never change is provable nonsense.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I ignore the dictionary and instead believe you on the meaning of words? Why would I ignore the law and instead believe you on the meaning of the law? Why would I ignore the Supreme Court and instead believe you on the meaning of the constitution?

Why would any rational person?

Sigh. When did I ever claim that words can't change meaning? Never. But, I will claim this. Calling a gay couple married, is a legal wording only. "Marriage"(which is a bonding between the couple), can never happen. Therefore, the term "marriage is a misnomer.

Mark

You are welcome to your opinion- legally- and linguistically- you are incorrect.

My opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation. In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage. Gays cannot consummate a marriage. Therefore, there can be no marriage. Now, "we the people" can lie about it, and say there is, but in the back of our minds we understand that we hold a position that is logically impossible to hold.

Its a lot like the Orwell quotes. "War is peace" "Ignorance is knowledge"

IOW's the sheeple will believe anything.

Mark

How very true you are in that statement.