Conquer Club

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

DirtyDishSoap wrote:No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

This is precisely the sort of agreement I made with scary insects when I was in elementary school.


--Andy

DirtyDishSoap wrote:No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

That makes too much sense.

I can see the legitimate argument between Pro Life and Pro Choice. While the Pro Choice side doesn't feel like they are infringing on someone else's life, the Pro Life side does. So that debate makes sense.

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Bones2484 wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

That makes too much sense.

I can see the legitimate argument between Pro Life and Pro Choice. While the Pro Choice side doesn't feel like they are infringing on someone else's life, the Pro Life side does. So that debate makes sense.

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Haven't you heard all the slipper slope arguments, Bones?

People will start to want to marry their dog or their cat or their horse, or their car or house or apple pile! If equal rights are given, we must naturally extend equal rights to the extreme. Fair is fair.

When will it END?!?!


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

That makes too much sense.

I can see the legitimate argument between Pro Life and Pro Choice. While the Pro Choice side doesn't feel like they are infringing on someone else's life, the Pro Life side does. So that debate makes sense.

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Haven't you heard all the slipper slope arguments, Bones?

People will start to want to marry their dog or their cat or their horse, or their car or house or apple pile! If equal rights are given, we must naturally extend equal rights to the extreme. Fair is fair.

When will it END?!?!


--Andy

Oh, I've heard those! But that's specifically why I put the red bolded statement in my post before those "arguments" could be made

North Carolina: Where you can marry your cousin, but not your gay cousin.

Oh wait someone already posted that. Oh well.

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage was designed for couples to have children

People were having children loooooong before marriage was invented. Besides, the form and function of marriage has differed between cultures, and within those cultures it has drastically changed over time. In the modern world, most people get married because they are interested in who they're getting married to, not because of the potential children they might have someday.

Forgive my doubt here, but I have a feeling that the only reason you choose to define marriage that way is because you are looking for a way to argue against gay marriage. Free thinking involves taking some given premises and arriving at a conclusion, but so often when it comes to this issue people take the reverse path. They aren't looking for the best answer, they're looking for a way to get what they want.

I've always thought early marriage was a form of social contract, either to pass on property / possessions or something of the like?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I've always thought early marriage was a form of social contract, either to pass on property / possessions or something of the like?


--Andy

But if that were true, it wouldn't be homosexuals who were seeking to redefine marriage, but rather a small, growing smaller, number of people who want to redefine it as something gay people shouldn't be allowed to do.

That would be concerning, especially for conservatives who don't want people messing around with the definition and traditions of marriage.

It would be very concerning indeed.

AndyDufresne wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:

DirtyDishSoap wrote:No idea where my stance would be in on this...

Can't we be like "Hey, you do your thing, we'll do ours? Leave us alone, we leave you alone?" or is that concept too complicated?

That makes too much sense.

I can see the legitimate argument between Pro Life and Pro Choice. While the Pro Choice side doesn't feel like they are infringing on someone else's life, the Pro Life side does. So that debate makes sense.

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Haven't you heard all the slipper slope arguments, Bones?

People will start to want to marry their dog or their cat or their horse, or their car or house or apple pile! If equal rights are given, we must naturally extend equal rights to the extreme. Fair is fair.

When will it END?!?!


--Andy

Definitely before people start marrying lawnmowers or bacon slicers.

AndyDufresne wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

patrickaa317 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Bones2484 wrote:But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Does anyone know of any polls regarding what percentage of atheists do not support gay marriage? That would the ultimate source of truth for this answer.

I don't stand against gay marriage because of my religion but because of my core principles and thoughts on a societal norm when it comes to families and raising children. But religion had an influence on those values that I have, so it's not a direct reason but there are some ties there.

So I'd like to find some people who are atheists or agnostic and are against gay marriage. I know their out there but whether they are willing to speak out or not is a different story, sensitive issue especially when the name calling begins.

Anyway, for those without a subscription, Andy was closer, Patrick seems to have looked at something else. Warning- the definition is long if you want to open the spoiler tag.

show

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:

swimmerdude99 wrote:Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Not when you're making arguments about what marriage has always been.

patrickaa317 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Does anyone know of any polls regarding what percentage of atheists do not support gay marriage?

Good question! I did some google searching and found the following. Looks like in 2010, atheists/agnostics were at about 80% in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... er-than-1/

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Frigidus wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Not when you're making arguments about what marriage has always been.

I don't remember ever saying that.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

Bones2484 wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Bones2484 wrote:But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Does anyone know of any polls regarding what percentage of atheists do not support gay marriage?

Good question! I did some google searching and found the following. Looks like in 2010, atheists/agnostics were at about 80% in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... er-than-1/

And 16% oppose it. Were you able to find any reasons during your searching this?

patrickaa317 wrote:And 16% oppose it. Were you able to find any reasons during your searching this?

Only what was in the comments section, but nothing "official". Part of it seems to be the standard reasons: They were raised conservative and/or religious, or don't believe in gay couples raising children.

Or, a reason that may be unique to this group: it is "anti-Darwin" and "anti-evolution".

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patrickaa317 wrote:Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.