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

[Skylar]

Marriage is whatever we say marriage is.

That is the reality.

In the United States, any couple issued a marriage license is in reality- married.

Those who claim otherwise are denying reality.

Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell

Mark

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

You are holding me to a position I did not take.

Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

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 273
Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.

I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.

See how that works?

 

[jillian]

So this is just a survey to see who had contact with both their mother and father in life. And how important people feel about that for children.

is this another of your insane homobobic threads?

i feel sorry for you. you're pathetic

 

[Skylar]

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

Changing the language does not change the underlying reality.

We could redefine the language so that the word “elephant” includes this creature…

View attachment 65186​

…but that cannot change the underlying unalterable truth that the creature pictured above is a completely different creature from this one…

View attachment 65189​

Of course, your argument about changing language and definitions is really a defense of the concept that George Orwell defined and describes as “Newspeak”, which was the idea of corrupting language in order to control thought. The idea is that if language is altered to make it difficult to express a certain belief, then it will become difficult even to form or hold that belief; conversely, if language is altered to make it easier to express a belief, then it will be easier to hold that belief. That is exactly what you and those on your side are trying to do with “marriage”. You cannot change what marriage actually is, but if you can make it difficult to express the distinction between genuine marriage and the immoral mockery of marriage that you are promoting, then you hope to make it difficult even to grasp the distinction.

Your subjective opinion doesn't define reality. Killing your entire premise. As your only source...is you citing yourself.

And of course we can change the meaning of marriage. Marriage is whatever we say it is, as people invented it. Your insistence that the meaning of words can't change over time is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?

 

[rcfieldz]

My parents are no longer living. This issue is dead to me.

 

[bucs90]

Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?

Wasn't the question. Was it important to have both the man and woman role model present.

Example...in Modern Family...the 2 gay guys raising a daughter. She won't have a "mother". Claire and Phils kids will. Does that matter?

 

[rcfieldz]

Unrepentant sinners don't matter? Of course not.

 

[80zephyr]

Yes, yes, everything is what we say it is. Black can be white, man can be woman. If you have children, I hope that you live to see the world you are leaving them.

The book "1984" is coming true. Orwell was just a little to early with the date.

When a society gets used to denying reality, it becomes so much easier for the next denial.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

George Orwell

Mark

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

You are holding me to a position I did not take.

Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

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 273
Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.

I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.

See how that works?

My, my, you seem upset. Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.

See how that works?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Anyone here who had a mother and a father think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a mother and a mother think they were unimportant? Anyone here who had a father and a father think they were unimportant?

If you ask the wrong questions, you'll get the wrong answers.

Mark

 

[WorldWatcher]

Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.

And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.

Double standard much?


>>>>

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.

Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.

You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you. The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception. It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.

There is nothing "like" a father. A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father. There is nothing "like" a mother. A gay man can never be a mother.

Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other. They just can't call it "marriage". Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life. If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.) What will they tell their son? "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it". The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..

Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..

 

[mdk]

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

This rule of yours only exists in your imagination.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.

You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

1. No state requires children as part of the marriage contract.

2. Some jurisdictions require that certain couples cannot conceive children.

3. Denial of Civil Marriage doesn't magically make same-sex parents opposite sex parents, it just means the children of same sex couples are denied the legal protections of having married parents.


>>>>

 

[Skylar]

Mark.....you're stuck. As your only argument is to insist that marriage is whatever *you* say it is. And you're nobody. Your argument breaks at the same place it does with Bobs: your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality.

You can't get around that.

So why would a rational person ignore the law and the dictionary and instead believe you.....citing yourself?

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

You are holding me to a position I did not take.

Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

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 273
Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.

I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.

See how that works?

My, my, you seem upset.

Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.

If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.

Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.

The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.

We do.

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.

 

[JoeMoma]

Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?

You may self abort if you like.

 

[JoeMoma]

Where's the, Wish I'd missed out on this hell on earth option?

You may self abort if you like.

Note: I usually would not tell that to anyone; however, I know PMH is full of shot.

 

[Skylar]

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.

You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents. Ending your entire argument. Recognize marriage for gays or deny gays marriage....and same sex parents are still same sex parents. Denying them marriage doesn't magically transform them into opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that children will never have married parents. Which hurts those children and help none.

Ending your entire argument.

Nor is the right to marry predicated on children or the ability to have them.

Ending your argument again.

There is nothing "like" a father. A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father. There is nothing "like" a mother. A gay man can never be a mother.

Really? Because when discussing single parenthood, you offered us 'hope' as the same thing as a father. Or a single parent 'not being under contract' (whatever the hell that means) as being the same thing as a father.

Sorry, Sil.....but your argument is a self contradictory mess. And even you ignore you.

Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other. They just can't call it "marriage". Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life. If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.) What will they tell their son? "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it". The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..

They can certainly call their marriages marriage. As the right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Says who? Says the Supeme Court:

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

Ending your argument yet again. So you ignore the Supreme Court and replace their explicit findings with whatever pseudo-legal gibberish you want to imagine.

Um, Sil.....your imagination isn't a legal argument.

 

[80zephyr]

Children are created by the mating of a man and a woman. Marriage is an acknowledgment of that coupling.

And yet there are laws in this country that require that when certain men and women marry they must not be able to create children from that coupling.

Double standard much?


>>>>

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.

Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.



>>>>

Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

For the same reason that a rational person would know that a man is not a woman, or a white person is not black.

And what reason would that be? Remember, contrary to your batshit claim, definitions do change. And have.

Archaic words - Oxford Dictionaries

You insist this does not happen, can not happen. History, reality, and the dictionary demonstrate that you're wrong. And the dictionary is quite simply a better source on the meaning of words than you are. When it comes to legal terms, the law is a better source on legal definitions than you are.

You disagree. Um, so what? Linguistically, practically and legally.....you're nobody. Nor does your personal opinion have the slightest relevance to anyone else's marriage.

Get used to the idea.

You are holding me to a position I did not take.

Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:

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 273
Poll. Please Vote. Did You Have a Mother & Father in Your Life?

And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.

I have laid out why reality trumps both definition and law.

Nonsense. You offered a predictable Begging the Question fallacy offering us your subjective opinion and demanding it was 'reality'. Apparently because you say so.

Sorry, Zephy.....but your argument breaks in the same place as Bob's does. Your subjective opinion doesn't define objective reality. Its just your opinion. An opinion contradicted by both the dictionary and the law.

In any contest on the meaning of words between you and the dictionary, the dictionary wins. In any contest on legal definitions between you and the law, the law wins. As linguistically and legally, you're nobody.

See how that works?

My, my, you seem upset.

Smiling....is that your way of telling us that you did in fact take the position that definitions do not change? Deny it again, I'll just quote you again.

If even you are going to treat your positions like meaningless garbage to be tossed on the rhetorical midden heap, surely you'll understand why we treat your positions the same way.

Like I said before, the law or the dictionary do not define reality. I can legally change the name of a rose to broccoli, but it will always and forever be a rose.

The only thing you've offered us in 'defining reality' is your subjective opinion. Sorry, Zephy...but subjective is not objective. And you don't define the meaning of marriage.

We do.

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the dictionary on the meaning of words. You lose.

You're offering you citing yourself vs. the law on legal definitions. You lose.

It is quite impossible for me to lose. Reality does not change because the law says it does.

At least you know where you stand in regard to "newspeak". I hope your children appreciate your efforts.

Mark

 

[sealybobo]

Thats the problem with questions like this. People try to use exceptions to make the rule. Using exceptions, anything is possible.

Mark

So an exception can only be made for different sex spouses because why?

The concept of equal protection under the law is that LIKE situations are examined and applied. So here is your chance, please provide the legal justification for why law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in different sex relationships should be allowed to civilly marry and yet law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting, adults in same sex relationships should not be allowed to civilly marry.
Remember, you have to apply reasoning consistently, an exception applied to one situation would have to be available to the other situation.

You ask the easiest questions to answer.

The rule is hetero because marriage isn't about adults. It's about the children that states expect to arrive when two adults of opposite genders unite, regardless of their fertility or age. It is because beyond reproduction, children need the stable matrix wherein they get both a mother and father united for their benefit for life. That's why the rule exists and that is the description for the reason it exists.

So if there's a sterile hetero couple, the state expects they will adopt some day...not that they will, but exceptions don't run the rule as Mark just told you. The important issue with adoptive parents or grandparents (elderly marrieds) is that there is a man functioning as a father and a woman functioning as a mother...which...as you know..."father" and "mother" don't end at conception. It's a lifelong commitment to new beings who need guidance in the world specific to their gender and a reflection of how to deal with the opposite gender.

There is nothing "like" a father. A lesbian for sure is not "like" a father. There is nothing "like" a mother. A gay man can never be a mother.

Gays can have whatever contractual situation they want with each other. They just can't call it "marriage". Because marriage involves children and children's stake in what we call "marriage" is a mother and father for life. If gays have children with opposite gendered people, then they're not really gay are they if they've welcomed the opposite gender with which to procreate (lesbians who spend the night with a man or "turkey baster" a man's semen into themselves.) What will they tell their son? "Your dad was a turkey baster, so just live with it". The boy walks away thinking "great, my only value as a man is to be a handful of paste that lesbians use to get children..

Great lesson for kids and their self-worth..

Two dads are better than 1 mom. Do you realize the number one reason we have so much crime and poverty in this country is because too many men aren't fathering their kids????

We have no problems coming from gay parents who take an active role in their children's lives. Did you have 2 parents in your home?