Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,912 Year: 4,169/9,624 Month: 1,040/974 Week: 367/286 Day: 10/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The future of marriage
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 226 of 308 (380501)
01-27-2007 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 2:29 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
I think NoseyNed has framed the best propsoal yet.
I disagree, and I'm waiting for your comment on Dan Carrol's proposal, posted directly to you, twice now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 2:29 PM Fosdick has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 227 of 308 (380502)
01-27-2007 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 2:29 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
Why aren't anti-gay-marriage putting forward this idea in droves?
Do you really think more than a tiny fraction of anti-same-sex-marriage people would support this for a second?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 2:29 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 3:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 228 of 308 (380507)
01-27-2007 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by NosyNed
01-27-2007 2:39 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
NosyNed wrote:
Why aren't anti-gay-marriage putting forward this idea in droves? Do you really think more than a tiny fraction of anti-same-sex-marriage people would support this for a second?
Probably not. But what's in it for anti-same-sex-marriage people? All they get out of deal is a dilution of their idea of marriage, and maybe the statisfaction that gays get to to feel good about themselves and all.
My own proposal posted somewhere upthread has a value-added principle for same-sex marriage: adoption. Gay married couples would agree to adopt children to help society out a little instead of complaining about it all the time. Maybe that would help to improve the acceptability of same-sex "marriage" (disregarding the consummation problem, of course).
”Hoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by NosyNed, posted 01-27-2007 2:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 3:37 PM Fosdick has replied
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 01-27-2007 4:52 PM Fosdick has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 229 of 308 (380511)
01-27-2007 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 3:05 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
Gay married couples would agree to adopt children to help society out a little instead of complaining about it all the time.
They already do that, no thanks to the efforts of your side to oppose them.
Honestly don't you know anything about this debate? Same-sex marriage's opponents are trying to prevent gay adoption. How could it possibly be a draw for them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 3:05 PM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 7:20 PM crashfrog has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 230 of 308 (380520)
01-27-2007 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 3:05 PM


Consumed with consummation
(disregarding the consummation problem, of course)
The only consummation problem is yours. As I explained above, it's legally irrelevent, and I've never heard anyone other than you suggest that it was any kind of issue.
Quite honestly, you spend more time worrying about how gays have sex with one another than anyone I've ever met.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 3:05 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 7:20 PM subbie has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 231 of 308 (380532)
01-27-2007 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 11:24 AM


Re: CONSENT?”A Test
quote:
Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men?
Sure, if the blood is tested the same way mine would be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 11:24 AM Fosdick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 7:38 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 232 of 308 (380534)
01-27-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by subbie
01-27-2007 4:52 PM


all conservative Christians are obsessed with sex
Quite honestly, you spend more time worrying about how gays have sex with one another than anyone I've ever met.
Oh, man, it is ALWAYS the conservative, strict Christians that are obsessed and preoccupied with sex.
They see it everywhere, they think about it all the time, they devote their lives, it sometimes seems, to sex.
And they are often really, really kinky.
Hoot Mon and Juggs are perfect examples.
They are the ones talking about bestiality, pedophilia, necrophelia, the consummation of gay marriages, and on and on.
I mean, I certainly don't think about these things in connection to adults getting married. I mean, it would never even occur to me to connect these things with adult people wanting to get married.
Kinky. Very kinky, those conservative Christians.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by subbie, posted 01-27-2007 4:52 PM subbie has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 233 of 308 (380535)
01-27-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by crashfrog
01-27-2007 3:37 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
Please let me demonstrate how annoying pedantry can be:
crashfrog wrote:
Same-sex marriage's opponents are trying to prevent gay adoption. How could it possibly be a draw for them?
What's with this "Same-sex marriage's opponents..."? Do you mean "Same-sex-marriage opponents..."? Why do you make a possessive out of an adjective? You clearly don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Demonstration concluded, frog, and I hope you learned your lesson.
Now, please tell us how and why you disagree with NoseyNed's proposal. And don't refer me to Dan's proposal either, because it ain't one.
”Hootin' for you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 3:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 7:23 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 235 by subbie, posted 01-27-2007 7:31 PM Fosdick has not replied
 Message 244 by crashfrog, posted 01-27-2007 10:29 PM Fosdick has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2199 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 234 of 308 (380539)
01-27-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 7:20 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
quote:
What's with this "Same-sex marriage's opponents..."? Do you mean "Same-sex-marriage opponents..."? Why do you make a possessive out of an adjective?
He's not.
"Marriage" is a noun, not an adjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 7:20 PM Fosdick has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1284 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 235 of 308 (380542)
01-27-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 7:20 PM


Re: NosyNed's plan for the future of marriage
You are correct that pedantry can be annoying.
However, when the pedant is ridiculously wrong, then it's just amusing.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 7:20 PM Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 236 of 308 (380544)
01-27-2007 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by nator
01-27-2007 7:09 PM


Re: CONSENT?”A Test
quote:
Speaking of CONSENT, here's a yes/no question to test the righteous resolution of all you homophiles: Would you consent to a blood transfusion from a gay man who you knew was sexually active with other gay men?
nator replied:
Sure, if the blood is tested the same way mine would be.
You have more faith in clinical blood testing than I do. I certain would NOT accept blood from a gay man if I new he was sexually active with other gay men. I don't care if I'm dying, I'd rather die straight away than have to worry about HIV coursing through my bloodstream.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by nator, posted 01-27-2007 7:09 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2007 8:07 PM Fosdick has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 4023 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 237 of 308 (380551)
01-27-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Fosdick
01-27-2007 7:38 PM


Re: CONSENT?”A Test
You have more faith in clinical blood testing than I do. I certain would NOT accept blood from a gay man if I new he was sexually active with other gay men. I don't care if I'm dying, I'd rather die straight away than have to worry about HIV coursing through my bloodstream.
Well, if the testing procedure isn`t adequate, you don`t think it remotely possible you could get HIV coursing through your bloodstream from a heterosexual donor?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 7:38 PM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by jar, posted 01-27-2007 8:16 PM Nighttrain has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 238 of 308 (380552)
01-27-2007 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Nighttrain
01-27-2007 8:07 PM


Gimme that Straight HIV, not that thar Queer HIV
Well, if the testing procedure isn`t adequate, you don`t think it remotely possible you could get HIV coursing through your bloodstream from a heterosexual donor?
You don't seem to understand, that would be "Straight HIV" not that thar "Queer HIV".
LOL
These are all the same old stupid arguments we went through about 50 years ago. It is the same ignorant folk that fought integration, didn't want that darkie blood or darkie organs.
The names have changed but it is still the same folk opposing progress and civil rights and in that half century they have not even been able to think of one new obstacle or objection.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Nighttrain, posted 01-27-2007 8:07 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Fosdick, posted 01-27-2007 8:58 PM jar has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 239 of 308 (380553)
01-27-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hyroglyphx
01-27-2007 12:04 PM


Re: The future of marriage, redefined
Homosexuality is an action and a state of mind.
Great. Choose to be aroused by gay porn, then get back to us.
And if this comparison is allowed to stand, then you are going to have to come up with a reason why pedophilia, zoophilia, polygamy, sibling or parental marriage, or necrophilia aren't granted the same status as you seek for homosexuals.
Done. Ignored by you.
I believe you can make that argument and encourage you to really think of a worthy defense. But if we're all about equality on EvC and society in general, then I should be allowed to make analogies as well.
You're allowed to make as many analogies as you want. The ones you're making make you sound foolish.
I could be aroused by a woman other than my wife and have my baser appetites aroused.
Yeah, I didn't ask if women could arouse you. I asked if you could choose to be aroused by men.
Do we need to explain to you what "gay" means?
I don't believe its a conscious choice.... an orientation they could control.
You should try counting the number of times you contradict yourself in a single thought. It's pretty astounding.
He didn't point out why it was illegal. He stated that dead people have no rights.
Which makes it very difficult for them to, say, own property, or consent to sex, or involve themselves in all manner of aspects of marriage.
Of course, you know this already.
So women not being allowed in to the men's room is men saying, "Haha, you aren't cool enough to come in here because you don't a have a penis."? Or at the voting polls, "Sorry kid, you aren't good enough to vote. We're segregating you."
The women entering the men's room violates the men's right to privacy. The underage voter, being uanble to provide an informed vote, presents an obvious risk to the well-being of others.
See? I provided reasons why we limit rights on these matters. You have yet to do so for gay marriage. Despite many, many requests.
Marriage is not what homosexual activists are seeking.
Except for all those homosexuals who are looking to get married, sure.
Once that happens, people, including children in school, will have to be taught that homosexuality is the equivalent of marital love which nullifies their religion (something that has been protected since the beginning of this nation, but is now eroding) because their beliefs are no longer valid.
Strange. Nobody ever sat me down and taught me that your marriage is a moral one.
Prostitutes and their John's are consenting adults...
Yeah, it's pretty stupid that prostitution's illegal.
But there are social consequences that have been illustrated throughout history that make it a bad idea.
Yeah, remember when Nevada legalized prostitution, and within a year, the whole state burned down to a fiery, sinful pile of ashes? That was fucked up.
The specific purpose of the law is to restrain and prohibit harmful behavior, because the proper role of good government is to protect society and individuals.
Great. You go ahead and point to that harm caused by homosexuals any old time you feel like it.
If you were bored you wouldn't reply.
Oh, I'm not bored by making fun of you. You're still a pretty tight source of comedy.
Maybe you should actually address what I'm saying and I won't have to repeat myself.
Yeah, believe it or not, I got what you're saying. If we allow gay marriage, then all of a sudden, sodomized children will be running through the streets, pausing only to fuck corpses while blowing dogs. Meanwhile, everyone in America will be forced announce their love for hot man on man action, every hour, on the hour.
I really wish I had that cuckoo clock handy.

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2007 12:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Chiroptera, posted 01-27-2007 8:46 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 308 (380555)
01-27-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Dan Carroll
01-27-2007 8:29 PM


Re: The future of marriage, redefined
quote:
Oh, I'm not bored by making fun of you.
And neither am I. God, I missed you when you were gone, Dan.
Oh yeah, topic! Uh, gays should be allowed to be married.

This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Dan Carroll, posted 01-27-2007 8:29 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024