Political Crossfire Forums

[mwm1331]

Angry? No just making a point. You can argue, debate whatever. There is nothing to debate. This is what marriage is. You want to change it. Society at large does not.
End of story. You complaining that same sex couples can't get married and that equals discrimination is as logical as me complaining that I am being discriminated against because I can't be considered a mother.
I am not a mother and never will be thats the way it is. Men impregnate, Women become pregnant. Fact of life. As is the fact that marriage is The union of a man and a woman.
And no from polygamy to monogamy is not a major change. Because even in polygamous rel;ationships, those of the same sex weren't married to each other.
If a man married 3 women, those three women were married to the man, not to each other. Same goes for those few cultures that allowed a woman to marry multiple men.
Bottom line whether you like it or not marriage has always been and still is about procreation. That is what the insitution is designed to support. You can't porcreate, therfore marriage has nothing to do with you. Now if you wanna create a life partnership commitment or some such go for it. I'll support that. But as long as you are trying to force us to change what doesn't need, or warrant changing, people will oppose you.
It is what it is, and all the activism, false accusations, theatrics, and protests won't change that.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Angry? No just making a point.
Except that you aren't. Repeating the same debunked arguments doesn't accomplish anything.

Quote: You can argue, debate whatever. There is nothing to debate.
There obviously is, or we wouldn't be here, would we?

Quote: This is what marriage is.
Repeating that over and over again like some kind of mantra with no arguments to support it doesn't make it so.

Quote: You want to change it.
I'm not trying to change marriage. Gay people can and do get married - they have for a long time. What I want to change is the government's restriction that says heterosexual marriages are somehow privileged over all others - even when they don't produce children.

Quote: Society at large does not.
Society at large does not agree firmly on the issue.

Quote: End of story.
You wish it were so. It is not.

Quote: You complaining that same sex couples can't get married and that equals discrimination is as logical as me complaining that I am being discriminated against because I can't be considered a mother.
I am not a mother and never will be thats the way it is. Men impregnate, Women become pregnant. Fact of life. As is the fact that marriage is The union of a man and a woman.
False. Just because the first premise is logical, that quality isn't automatically imported to the second premise. Your inability to become a mother has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of marriage. You have not given us any arguments that disprove the existance of all the qualities essential to marriage between homosexual couples. Procreation isn't essential to marriage - that is a fact that you cannot deny. If it were so, we would require people to affirm their intent to reproduce and require that they accomplish it in a reasonable time frame. Upon their failure to do so, we would dissolve their marriage. We don't restrict marriage in this way, and therefore it is not logical to say that procreation is essential to the definition of marriage.

Likewise, we don't prohibit people from marrying when we have prior knowledge of their infertility. Therefore, it is also not logical to say that the potential for procreation is essential to marriage.

The mechanics used in procreation are also a poor argument for restricting marriage. Not all couples engage in the same sexual practices, many of those practices are not procreative in nature, and there are also completely sexless marriages. It is therefore not a valid argument for restricting the definition of marriage to heterosexual couples.

Quote: And no from polygamy to monogamy is not a major change. Because even in polygamous rel;ationships, those of the same sex weren't married to each other.
If a man married 3 women, those three women were married to the man, not to each other. Same goes for those few cultures that allowed a woman to marry multiple men.
I disagree with you that it wasn't a major change, but I see not reason to belabor the point.

Quote: Bottom line whether you like it or not marriage has always been and still is about procreation.
Disproved multiple times already.

Quote: That is what the insitution is designed to support.
Likewise disproved.

Quote: You can't porcreate, therfore marriage has nothing to do with you.
Then it has nothing to do with infertile heterosexual couples, either. Couples that can't procreate can still contract with each other to form a family unit, and that IS what marriage is about.

Quote: Now if you wanna create a life partnership commitment or some such go for it.
I have, but the government refuses to recognize that, too - even without calling it a marriage.

Quote: I'll support that.
How would you vote in a referendum to prohibit the government's recognition of any non-marital union? Do you understand that the current wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment would do exactly that? The original wording included a ban on their recognition by state governments as well.

Quote: But as long as you are trying to force us to change what doesn't need, or warrant changing, people will oppose you.
We aren't trying to change marriage, only the government's recognition of it. So we disagree even about what it is that needs/warrants changing. So long as you insist on keeping special privileges for heterosexually married couples, we will continue to oppose you.

Quote: It is what it is, and all the activism, false accusations, theatrics, and protests won't change that.
It isn't what you claim it is, and all your false arguments and blustering won't change that.

[mwm1331]

Quote: Repeating that over and over again like some kind of mantra with no arguments to support it doesn't make it so.

Thats like telling me "repeating the sky is blue over and over again without some argument to support it"
This is the way it is.
Quote: False. Just because the first premise is logical, that quality isn't automatically imported to the second premise. Your inability to become a mother has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of marriage. You have not given us any arguments that disprove the existance of all the qualities essential to marriage between homosexual couples
Yes I have. For example one of the essential qualities of a marriage is that it is a union between a man and a woman. Therfore Same sex coupl;es do not have that essential quality.
Quote: Likewise disproved.
Wrong again.
Quote: It isn't what you claim it is, and all your false arguments and blustering won't change that.
Yes it is, and everyone in America Knows it. I understand you don't like it, but nobody cares.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Quote: Repeating that over and over again like some kind of mantra with no arguments to support it doesn't make it so.

Thats like telling me "repeating the sky is blue over and over again without some argument to support it"
This is the way it is.
Still not clear on the concept of how a debate is conducted, I see. Claiming something is true or false isn't enough - you have to provide arguments that support your claim or debunk the logic of another's.

Saying that something is true and using a totally unrelated analogy doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is quite clear that you don't have any real arguments to present or you would have done so by now.

Quote: Quote: It isn't what you claim it is, and all your false arguments and blustering won't change that.
Yes it is, and everyone in America Knows it. I understand you don't like it, but nobody cares.
"Everyone in America" doesn't know it. The fact that we're having this debate is evidence that your statement is false. Likewise, if nobody cared, the debate wouldn't be taking place. I may be the only one debatig the issue with you at the moment, but I'm not the only one who cares about the issue.

So long as you persist in making the same and/or similar outrageous assertions, you may reasonably expect that I will continue to hit you over the head with your own obvious mistakes until you either concede, withdraw or present an example of real debate.

[Enoch]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
Quote:
Yes it is, and everyone in America Knows it. I understand you don't like it, but nobody cares.
"Everyone in America" doesn't know it. The fact that we're having this debate is evidence that your statement is false. Likewise, if nobody cared, the debate wouldn't be taking place. I may be the only one debatig the issue with you at the moment, but I'm not the only one who cares about the issue.

So long as you persist in making the same and/or similar outrageous assertions, you may reasonably expect that I will continue to hit you over the head with your own obvious mistakes until you either concede, withdraw or present an example of real debate. I think you may be expecting too much. I am afraid that he is completely unaware of the concept of real debate, argumentative support, or anything else that is essential to an intellectual argument.

[mwm1331]

Quote: Still not clear on the concept of how a debate is conducted, I see. Claiming something is true or false isn't enough - you have to provide arguments that support your claim or debunk the logic of another's.

I know what a debate is. Thats why I know this isn't one. No you can talk about rules of debate, styles of debate, whatever till you're blue in the face.
Doesn't matter.
This is the way it is.
The sooner you figure that out the sooner you will be able to deal with your dissappointment and move on.
It aint happenning.
We aint changing marriage to suit you and yours.
A marriage is what it is.
A man and a woman.
Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Thats life deal with it.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Quote: Still not clear on the concept of how a debate is conducted, I see. Claiming something is true or false isn't enough - you have to provide arguments that support your claim or debunk the logic of another's.

I know what a debate is. Thats why I know this isn't one. No you can talk about rules of debate, styles of debate, whatever till you're blue in the face.
Doesn't matter.
This is the way it is.
The sooner you figure that out the sooner you will be able to deal with your dissappointment and move on.
It aint happenning.
We aint changing marriage to suit you and yours.
A marriage is what it is.
A man and a woman.
Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Thats life deal with it.

Repetition. You're correct in one thing - this isn't a debate. It's you repeatedly squawking out the same debunked assertion like some sort of demented parrot while the rest of us make the mistake of trying to engage you. But no more - if you won't engage in an honest debate then we're done here.

[mwm1331]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Quote: Still not clear on the concept of how a debate is conducted, I see. Claiming something is true or false isn't enough - you have to provide arguments that support your claim or debunk the logic of another's.

I know what a debate is. Thats why I know this isn't one. No you can talk about rules of debate, styles of debate, whatever till you're blue in the face.
Doesn't matter.
This is the way it is.
The sooner you figure that out the sooner you will be able to deal with your dissappointment and move on.
It aint happenning.
We aint changing marriage to suit you and yours.
A marriage is what it is.
A man and a woman.
Not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.
Thats life deal with it.

Repetition. You're correct in one thing - this isn't a debate. It's you repeatedly squawking out the same debunked assertion like some sort of demented parrot while the rest of us make the mistake of trying to engage you. But no more - if you won't engage in an honest debate then we're done here.


Debunked?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It is what it is man.
Live with it.

[F'losrix]

mwm1331 wrote: Debunked?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It is what it is man.
Live with it.
Yes, debunked. All you're giving us is a repetition of the same assertions that we've already shown to be false. You've barely presented any counterarguments at all and none of them have withstood scrutiny.

Saying that 'it is what it is' and 'live with it' is nothing more than stubborn belligerance on your part. We've already shown why it isn't what you claim it is. If you won't present any new assertions or counterarguments I'm going to request a thread lock, as it is pointless for us to continue going in circles this way.

[mwm1331]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: mwm1331 wrote: Debunked?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
It is what it is man.
Live with it.
Yes, debunked. All you're giving us is a repetition of the same assertions that we've already shown to be false. You've barely presented any counterarguments at all and none of them have withstood scrutiny.

Saying that 'it is what it is' and 'live with it' is nothing more than stubborn belligerance on your part. We've already shown why it isn't what you claim it is. If you won't present any new assertions or counterarguments I'm going to request a thread lock, as it is pointless for us to continue going in circles this way.

Awww does the wittle mystic wanna thready locky?
You haven't debunked s**t skeptical. You haven't shown s**t to be false.
You haven't made any points.
It is what it is.
You know it, I know it, the wall knows it.
You can't. Because whether you like it or not, marriage is what it is. And two guys it aint.

Now you can blather on all you want about how you debunked this and proved that. Truth is though you aint debunked or proven jack s**t.
Your arguments are inane and unfactual, as well as illogical.
You are unable to seperate the institution of marriage from each individual marriage, unable to differentiate from an institutuions purpose and its abillity or inabillity to always succesffully achieve that purpose, and unable to understand due to your own bias, that what you are asking for is a fundamental change in a working and functioning institution to satisfy a minority fringe group at the cost of society at large, who are largely, and by a very large majority opposed to this.

Now you can cry discrimination till the cows some home and quite frankly I don't give a s**t whether you feel like you're being discriminated agaisnt or not.

Like it or not marriage aint about gays, and at the end of the day I suspect thats what pisses y'all off the most. It has nothing to do with you, doesn't concern you, and isn't about you. Which is something all you attention hogs just can't stand.

[Eternal]

I think this discussion has been going in circles for some time now and as such has reached the end.


Cheers, Eternal