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

[80zephyr]

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

You can accept reality...or not. I really don't care. But, the one thing you can't do is change reality.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Yes, they are free to marry. who said they weren't?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

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.

Who said that?

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

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

Yes, I do. Personally, I don't care what the historians and Muslims THINK. I will refer to how they LIVE for my evidence.

I have given you a link. Believe what you will

Mark

 

[Asclepias]

I see Mark is still swinging wildly hoping to hit something.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, and trying to redefine it to include that which it is not doesn't change marriage at all; it only makes fools of those who try to cling to the false definition.

You cannot turn a paramecium into an elephant simply by trying to change the definitions of “paramecium” and “elephant”.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yes, they are free to marry. who said they weren't?

Mark

Here is your quote
In law, the consummation of a marriage is considered part of the marriage.

As I pointed out- couples who are unable to participate in 'consummation of a marriage' are still not only able to get married- but are considered to be just as married- legally, morally, and socially.

And I will note- you were unable to cite any law to back up your claim.

Once again- the reality at odds with your 'opinion'

 

[Syriusly]

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

You can accept reality...or not. I really don't care. But, the one thing you can't do is change reality.

Mark

The reality is that same gender couples can and do get legally married- and get married in churches- and get married in front of friends and family.

You can't accept reality- so you pretend that it doesn't exist.

 

[Syriusly]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
  
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
  
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,

Mark

Insist away. That and $5.00 at Starbucks will get you a cup of coffee.

And at least the coffee will be made from real beans.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

 

[Skylar]

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

When were children asked or represented as to their unique implicit share in the marriage contract? Children want a mother and father. The poll is clear. Why do you want to hurt children?

As you know, denying marriage to same sex parents don't help any child. Even by your own standards, denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents. Which hurts those children and help none.

Making you proposal worse than useless. As it doesn't remedy any of the 'harms' you've alleged. While your proposal causes enormous harms:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

...DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

You insist we inflict this harm on tens of thousands of children in exchange for nothing. As denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't help any child.

No thank you.

 

[Skylar]

The idea that all definitions remain immutable and can never change is provably false.

I never claimed that.

But marriage is what it is, .

Marriage is what it is.

Webster:

• the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
• : a similar relationship between people of the same sex
• 
  : a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

Oxford English Dictionary
The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:

Marriage is what it is- and in the United States- both legally- and linguistically- it is a legally recognized union between two persons of either gender.

Yeah, but they insist that the dictionary, the law and the courts are wrong on the meaning of words.....and only they are right.

Because they say they are.

 

[EverCurious]

Children want to be loved, period. I doubt most children actually care about their parents sexual orientation unless they are /taught/ to dislike it; it's an upbringing bias against homosexuals imo. Kids grow up in whatever family they grow up in, I grew up loving my step-father and my adopted sister and my adopted brothers. There are absolutely /no/ "instinctive" rules about whom kids can love or look up to; that's why a lot of abused children don't seek help until they start to gain independence from their parents, and in fact why those same abused children are devastated emotionally if an abusive parent is removed from their life "for their own good." A child's love does not have the strict boundaries you're insisting exist.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I insisted no such thing. But, I will insist that the term "marriage" as being used today is incorrect,

Mark

Except when you did:

No, definitions do not change. Stupid people tell us they change. We now have "definitions" that tell us a man is a woman, a white is a black, and a middle aged man is really a six year old girl.

Post 253

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

And now you've had to abandon your own argument, your own words. Even you ignore the silly nonsense you offer. Surely you can understand why we don't have any use for your claims.

Definitions change. You insist that definitions do NOT change. Your claim is provably false.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries (US)

Why would I or any rational person ignore the dictionary and instead believe you? You've already proven that you're unreliable in defining terms, having offered us provably false nonsense.

You're done.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.

Mark

I agree...Your opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Yes, it is true. How perceptive of you.

Mark

I agree...Your opinion has nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Its the same schtich that Where_r_my_keys used to double down on: the insistence that their personal opinions are objective facts.

And its still just their opinions.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The reality is that same gender couples can and do get legally married- and get married in churches- and get married in front of friends and family.

That is no more reality than Bruce Jenner being a woman is reality.