Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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:
80zephyr said: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.
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.
Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.
Mark
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.
Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
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.
A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.
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.
A same-sex homosexual couple is not the same thing as a heterosexual coupling between a man and a woman.
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????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..
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?
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.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:
80zephyr said: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.
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.
Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
And you're nobody.
Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
Very easy. All people WERE treated equally. Any man could marry any woman. Every person in America was treated exactly the same.
Mark
Virginia tried that logic in the Loving case.
Didn't flush then either.
>>>>
Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.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????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..
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?
Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?
People continue to ask the wrong questions.
Mark
Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
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.Oh, I believe you. But this 80zephyr guy? He says you're a fucking liar:
And your position is demonstrably false. As the dictionary demonstrates, definitions change all the time. With the law demonstrating the same process over time.
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.
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.
Except that you already did. As the only thing you've offered to define 'reality'....is your subjective opinion.
And you're nobody.
Is you citing your subjective opinion as defining objective reality all you have? If so.....that was easy.
Sorry, I am rational enough to understand "newspeak". And I reject it because it is not reality.
Mark
We humans do make the rules.Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
Marriage is what we say it is? In reality then, EVERYTHING is what we say it is. The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
Orwell has your kind down pat.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
George Orwell
Mark
Again, marriage doesn't define the gender of one's parents.
It doesn't have to. Biology does that. It takes both a man and a woman—a father and a mother—to produce a child.
And as adoption demonstrates, the ability to concieve a child isn't what makes you that child's parents. A lesson reaffirmed when one parent is infertile....and they have kids by other means.
Unless you're going to argue that adoptive parents aren't parents....your argument is already DOA.
Marriage reflects this immutable biological fact, and the needs of society and of children with regard to the responsibility of fathers and mothers for their children and to each other.
Except that it doesn't. No marriage requires children or is predicated on them. And if you do have kids, there's no requirement that they be genetically related to you in order to be their parents.
Marriage is whatever say it is. As we invented it.
Marriage is what we say it is?
The only law against murder is because we "say" that it is illegal and the killer will be punished. Everything we do is because it is "what we say it is" All of morality, all of what is right or wrong is a human construct.
Like you? You just did what you accused others of doing. You are asking the wrong question.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????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..
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?
Two dads are better than one mom? Well then, wouldn't 3 dads be better? How about 4?
People continue to ask the wrong questions.
Mark
A. Why are there babies or kids sitting waiting to be adopted?
B. Would you rather they stay in foster homes than live with two loving gay dudes?
C. Where is crime and poverty coming from? Is it coming from young men and women who were raised by gays or single moms and no dad?
Heteros have their own problems to solve and they are bigger than this. But it's easier to stay in denial about yourselves and instead blame liberals blacks Muslims or gays
