Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,910 Year: 4,167/9,624 Month: 1,038/974 Week: 365/286 Day: 8/13 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 13 of 243 (319130)
06-08-2006 2:07 PM 		Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 1:39 PM

catholic scientist writes:
​
Its from how I look at marriage that one with a guy wouldn't be legitimate (WRT my religion)
​
So can you explain why YOUR religion should be able to define MY marriage?
​
My marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 14 of 243 (319135)
06-08-2006 2:13 PM 		Reply to: Message 9 by New Cat's Eye
06-08-2006 1:57 PM

Catholic scientist writes:
​
I never considered ...I don't care if its with a guy ... but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage...Even if it legally didn't exist, I would know that it did...The word means something to me, I don't want to change it...
​
So.. you want to define thousands of other peoples loving, commited relationships based on your own self distrust? your own misgivings?
Sorry, but that really is the mnost mind bogglingly selfish thing I have ever heard.
​
you actually, perhaps unwittingly made a good point though..
catholic scientist writes:
​
but the ligitamacy comes from what I think about my marriage
Doesn't everyone else deserve this luxury?
​
Edited by Creavolution, : typo
​
Edited by Creavolution, : No reason given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-08-2006 1:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 84 of 243 (321832)
06-15-2006 11:35 AM 		Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 9:27 AM

CS writes:
​
To fail to include someone is not the same as purposfully excluding them.
what? of course it is.. exactly the same!
​
to willfully fail to include someone is precisely the same as purposefully excluding them.
​
how can you honestly say it is different.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 9:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 06-15-2006 11:40 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 12:45 PM Heathen has replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 88 of 243 (321864)
06-15-2006 12:35 PM 		Reply to: Message 85 by Phat
06-15-2006 11:40 AM

What?
of course it is you puposefully excluded me so you could spend time with your other friends...
​
what ever the reason.. it is purposeful exclusion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 06-15-2006 11:40 AM Phat has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 12:46 PM Heathen has replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 100 of 243 (321937)
06-15-2006 2:23 PM 		Reply to: Message 90 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 12:45 PM

catholic scientist writes:
​
Well, you had to throw that word 'willfully' in there and changed it.
​
Well you are not accidentally failing to include them.. you are doing so because you want to... it is your will that they 'not be included'.
how is this different to 'excluding'?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 4:01 PM Heathen has replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 101 of 243 (321938)
06-15-2006 2:25 PM 		Reply to: Message 91 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 12:46 PM

So if it wasn't on purpose did you mean to include me? and it just slipped your mind?
​
I can't see where you are going here.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 12:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 102 of 243 (321939)
06-15-2006 2:26 PM 		Reply to: Message 99 by iano
06-15-2006 2:15 PM

Re: Male bride
iano writes:
​
In this case, a male-order bride
Badum-tish!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by iano, posted 06-15-2006 2:15 PM iano has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by iano, posted 06-16-2006 7:01 PM Heathen has not replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 109 of 243 (321972)
06-15-2006 4:58 PM 		Reply to: Message 105 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 4:01 PM

quote:
Well you are not accidentally failing to include them.. you are doing so because you want to... it is your will that they 'not be included'.
​
Thats very bold of you to tell me what my will is (and a violation of forum guidline #10).
​
You have stated throughout this thread that you do not want homosexuals to be included in marriage.. I am simply re stating the position you have made clear here
​
CS writes:
​
I just don't think they should be included in marriages
CS writes:
​
I have reasons for not wanting to include them
​
It seems to me that you want to "not include" homosexuals in your definition of marriage... as a result of this they will be excluded. seems very obvious to me.
​
CS writes:
​
Or like Phat's example, if I invite persons A, B and D to dinner, it is not the same as saying person C cannot come to dinner.
So if person C turned up would you let him in? or would you 'exclude' him?
​
Purposefully wanting that someone not be included is exactly the same as wanting that they be excluded.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:27 PM Heathen has replied
  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1313 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 117 of 243 (322045)
06-15-2006 8:40 PM 		Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
06-15-2006 7:27 PM

I'm sorry what part of your posts have I missed...
​
so have I got it wrong? you DO want homesexuals included in your definition of marriage?
​
If I've picked it up wrong I'm genuinely sorry... but it certainly looks like you do not want Homosexuals included in marriage.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-15-2006 7:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024