Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The future of marriage
docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 33 of 308 (378757)
01-21-2007 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hyroglyphx
01-20-2007 2:43 PM


Re: Wow.
I leave them alone. Is it me who is imposing my beliefs on them, or is it them imposing their beliefs on me? Try to remember that its not I who defined marriage.
Yes. You did not define marriage. So why do you have any investment as to what the definition is?
This was established long before your great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. Therefore, the imposition is all on their side of the table. So who isn't leaving who alone?
Which kind of marriage are you talking about? 'Cause the customs and practices tend to differ from place to place. (I'm told that there were some people who had/have MORE THAN ONE SPOUSE!!!) Oh, and it would seem that you are saying that gay people should not be allowed to be married because they would be disturbing someone's great-great-great-great-great grandfather's daddy's twinkle's conception of marriage. I'm sure this great-great-great-great-great grandfather's daddy's twinkle was a great-great-great-great thinker, but really... there's no need to hold their opinion in such high regard.
Am I not afforded the right to speak for my beliefs?
Oh baby are you ever!
Is this not the age tolerance where we all can believe as we see fit?
We sure can!
If homosexuals want to be together, that's on them. You won't see me flouting and jeering as they walk hand in hand down the street.
How noble!
If they want to establish their own kind of legal union, take it up with the courts. But please don't redefine marriage to suit an agenda.
But what if they just want to call it marriage? Why shouldn't they? After all, we could just re-write the secular laws as to what constitutes marriage and that would not affect your religious marriage at all, eh?
It annoys me that the gay marriage debate is always cast as some sort-of symantical issue. The definitions of words change all the time because language is a fluid, dynamic system. No one complained when faggot stopped meaning a bundle of sticks...
Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-20-2007 2:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 38 of 308 (378771)
01-21-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by crashfrog
01-21-2007 5:52 PM


You're like some sort-of beaurocratic hulk!
Will you do my taxes if I make you angry enough?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 01-21-2007 5:52 PM crashfrog has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 98 of 308 (379600)
01-24-2007 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Fosdick
01-24-2007 7:17 PM


Re: The "family-oriented marriage"
Others have addressed this, but I'd like to add:
I don't oppose oral or anal or nasal or olfactorial sex, but this is not my idea of how marriages are consummated.
This is only important to you and one who would be your wife.
Unless you'd like to establish some way to be sure that marrieds have sex with each other at least once after their ceremony (in order for them to "officially" consumate...). Not sure how to do that... I guess we could make them do it on camera? HOT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Fosdick, posted 01-24-2007 7:17 PM Fosdick has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 184 of 308 (380155)
01-26-2007 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2007 2:16 PM


Re: The future of marriage, redefined
Yes, because the lobbyists will spin their rhetoric in a way so that calling it rape will be archaic, cruel, and mean-spirited. Under the guise of "love" and "tolerance," aggressive lobbying can produce the same effects. I think you forget what life was like only 30 years ago. The vast preponderance of psychologists deemed homosexuality as a sexual disorder. Not even ten years later, through aggressive lobbying efforts, they managed to turn their entire diagnoses around concerning all previously held beliefs about homosexuality. And through light-hearted sitcoms and touching stories on the evening news, twenty more years was all it took for mainstream America to second guess themselves. I have no doubt, whatsoever, that not only can this happen with pedophilia, but that just such an endeavor is already underway and seeking the same results as homosexuality.
Do you believe that homosexuality is as harmful to the parties involed as pedophilia?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2007 2:16 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2007 5:15 PM docpotato has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 195 of 308 (380195)
01-26-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2007 3:47 PM


Re: CONSENT!!!!
I don't really care what people do with animals or dead bodies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2007 3:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 197 of 308 (380201)
01-26-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Hyroglyphx
01-26-2007 5:15 PM


Re: The future of marriage, redefined
Do you believe that homosexuality is as harmful to the parties involed as pedophilia?
Yes, I do. I view it in the same way as I would for any sexually immoral act. However, part of the problem that I see amongst opponents of homosexuality seem to be their inherent view of it in "worse" terms as they would another sexually immoral act, like fornication, which they may have committed at some point in their life. If you think that I view it in terms of "worse" or "better," know that I don't.
Thanks. I see where you're coming from and it makes sense. Your desire to prevent gay marriage no doubt stems from your desire to protect people from harming themselves. Of course, I disagree. On what basis do you think being homosexual is harmful to people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-26-2007 5:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2007 12:14 PM docpotato has replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 202 of 308 (380253)
01-26-2007 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Fosdick
01-26-2007 7:54 PM


Re: What's traditional?
It doesn't say vaginal sexual intercourse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Fosdick, posted 01-26-2007 7:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

docpotato
Member (Idle past 5047 days)
Posts: 334
From: Portland, OR
Joined: 07-18-2003


Message 223 of 308 (380491)
01-27-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
01-27-2007 12:14 PM


Re: The future of marriage, redefined
Hmmmmm...? Methinks I detect a tone of sarcasm.
I was afraid of that. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely curious. But I can understand how you might think I was being sarcastic especially with some of my previous posts. No worries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-27-2007 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx 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