Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Yurt said:
you weren't clear...do you support this tradition or not?



what i think you're saying is, you're ok with the US getting rid of that tradition, but not getting rid of the so called prohibition or definition that only a man and woman can marry.....if so, that is an intellectually dishonest stance, as you allow one long tradition to change, but not another
Click to expand...
The tradition of 13 or 14 year old girls marrying was based on the short life span of people. She needed to get married, then get pregnant to ensure the survival of the species. Since life spans have gotten longer and teenagers take longer to mature in our increasing complex society the appropriate age to marry has been increased to 18, which I of course support.

Queer marriage, in contrast, does nothing to ensure survival of the species, and is unrelated to your issue.
 
Southern Man said:
The tradition of 13 or 14 year old girls marrying was based on the short life span of people. She needed to get married, then get pregnant to ensure the survival of the species. Since life spans have gotten longer and teenagers take longer to mature in our increasing complex society the appropriate age to marry has been increased to 18, which I of course support.

Queer marriage, in contrast, does nothing to ensure survival of the species, and is unrelated to your issue.
Click to expand...

no, they got married at the age, especially in the bible, because they were of the age to have birth....our women still enter puberty at the same age (nice try though), thus, there is no rational for changing the tradition. further, studies show that europeans are having less children than they did before, so if anything, changing the tradition has not at all ensured the survival of europeans....

it is exactly related as it deals with traditional notions of marriage. your reasonings are unpersuasive and show that you are taking an intellectually dishonest stance when it comes to traditional notions of marriage. additionally, in some states the age is 16 with parental consent....another stone in your fast sinking basket of unpersuasive notions regarding marriage.
 
Yurt said:
no, they got married at the age, especially in the bible, because they were of the age to have birth....our women still enter puberty at the same age (nice try though), thus, there is no rational for changing the tradition. further, studies show that europeans are having less children than they did before, so if anything, changing the tradition has not at all ensured the survival of europeans....

it is exactly related as it deals with traditional notions of marriage. your reasonings are unpersuasive and show that you are taking an intellectually dishonest stance when it comes to traditional notions of marriage. additionally, in some states the age is 16 with parental consent....another stone in your fast sinking basket of unpersuasive notions regarding marriage.
Click to expand...

You completely ignored my point as to child bearing age with respect to longevity.
 
Southern Man said:
You completely ignored my point as to child bearing age with respect to longevity.
Click to expand...

actually i did....i pointed out how this has not been good for european countries who's people generally have children much later in life than other cultures....

living to 50 or 70 is not that big of an age difference to justify changing the tradition...in fact, as i pointed out, women still are capable of having children at the age of 13 or 14. thus, there is no biological reason to change this tradition. if we live longer, what difference does it make if we force women to not have children until the arbitrary age of 18? you said they matured later, i wholly disagree and biology and science are on my side. mental maturity is not the same as the body's maturity and that has not changed.

i also pionted out that some states in the US allow them to marry at the age of 16 with parental consent....you ignored that though.....
 
Yurt said:
unanswered despite the false claims it was answered....
Click to expand...

and still unanswered....all pampers has is calling me a liberal....wow, i run in fear of such great wit...

yes, i've already stated that...why do you think i keep asking you for an example and why do you think i keep referring you to loving v. virginia? what state is that from? and did you notice your statute was altered regarding consent in 1957? why do you keep ignoring california? let me ask you this:

if a state, like CA doesn't have it defined, are you then going to honestly admit that such state cannot deny gays the right to marry?

further, you apparently are not aware, no matter how many times i keep bringing up and you ignorantly swipe it away.....states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses by not allowing interracial marraiges.....

tell me....how did that turn out for them...

you have lost the legal argument, but i did enjoy your efforts
Click to expand...

you claim you kick liberal ass all the time....well come on pampers...let's see it

if you had any intellectual honesty you would have to be against CA changing their constitution to redefine marriage.....
 
Yurt said:
if you had any intellectual honesty you would have to be against CA changing their constitution to redefine marriage.....
Click to expand...

you're tiresome, but here....now shut up and sit in the corner....

Proposition 8 was passed to counter the decision of the California Supreme Court which held....
that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22).
Click to expand...

Proposition 8 put BACK the definition that the Supreme Court changed.....satisfied?

if you don't want to be called a liberal, stop whining like a liberal....
 
Southern Man said:
The tradition of 13 or 14 year old girls marrying was based on the short life span of people. She needed to get married, then get pregnant to ensure the survival of the species. Since life spans have gotten longer and teenagers take longer to mature in our increasing complex society the appropriate age to marry has been increased to 18, which I of course support.

Queer marriage, in contrast, does nothing to ensure survival of the species, and is unrelated to your issue.
Click to expand...

Pure nonsense. If the women got married at 18, and had children over the next 10 years, they would still only have to live until they were 46 to see the last one reach age 18.

When was the average age under 46?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you're tiresome, but here....now shut up and sit in the corner....

Proposition 8 was passed to counter the decision of the California Supreme Court which held....


Proposition 8 put BACK the definition that the Supreme Court changed.....satisfied?

if you don't want to be called a liberal, stop whining like a liberal....
Click to expand...

incorrect as usual.....the california constitution did not define marriage as between a man and a woman...it simply said.....marriage is a fundamental right...it did not define marriage, so the supreme did not at all change the CA constitution, which is the highest law in the land in CA....

prop 8, if you are honest, changed/amended the CA constitution to define it as between a man and a woman....

as your quote stated, but you of course ignored the salient points that prove you're wrong:

that laws directed at gays and lesbians are subject to strict judicial scrutiny and that marriage is a fundamental right under Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution, thereby holding unconstitutional the previously existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage embodied in two statutes, one enacted by the Legislature in 1977, and the other through the initiative process in 2000 (Proposition 22).
Click to expand...

notice that BEFORE 1977 there were no statutes against same-sex marriages, so you need to be honest and admit the law was changed in 1977 to ban gay marriage and since you are against changing the law, you must be intellectual honest and be against the change in 1977....

the facts are unequivocally clear that in CA the law was in fact changed to ban gay marriage....you're either being dishonest by not admitting them or you are very stupid....which is it pampers?

are you going to be honest now and admit the changes in CA? and then of course argue against them?
 
btw....this is about the 7th time you keep running from this question:

further, you apparently are not aware, no matter how many times i keep bringing up and you ignorantly swipe it away.....states set their own law regarding the issuance of marriage licenses by not allowing interracial marraiges.....

tell me....how did that turn out for them...
Click to expand...

you mock those who run from questions, why do you do the same?
 
Southern Man said:
The tradition of 13 or 14 year old girls marrying was based on the short life span of people. She needed to get married, then get pregnant to ensure the survival of the species. Since life spans have gotten longer and teenagers take longer to mature in our increasing complex society the appropriate age to marry has been increased to 18, which I of course support.

Queer marriage, in contrast, does nothing to ensure survival of the species, and is unrelated to your issue.
Click to expand...

But it was a tradition, that has chenged; just like the negative attitudes toward Gay marriages.
You'll have to accept it and pretty soon Texas will have Broke Back Mountain anniverseries and you can attend. :cof1:
 
Yurt said:
you debate like a moron....no real debate, just pure insults because you cannot rationally discuss the issue with me....if you could, you would have, but you can't, so you make silly posts like the above....

keep running pmp....you only look stupid
Click to expand...

He's worried that he's going to be forced to marry a homosexual and he's scared that he might find out that he likes the arrangment. :cof1:
 
Yurt said:
incorrect as usual.....the california constitution did not define marriage as between a man and a woman...it simply said.....marriage is a fundamental right...it did not define marriage, so the supreme did not at all change the CA constitution, which is the highest law in the land in CA....

prop 8, if you are honest, changed/amended the CA constitution to define it as between a man and a woman....

as your quote stated, but you of course ignored the salient points that prove you're wrong:



notice that BEFORE 1977 there were no statutes against same-sex marriages, so you need to be honest and admit the law was changed in 1977 to ban gay marriage and since you are against changing the law, you must be intellectual honest and be against the change in 1977....

the facts are unequivocally clear that in CA the law was in fact changed to ban gay marriage....you're either being dishonest by not admitting them or you are very stupid....which is it pampers?

are you going to be honest now and admit the changes in CA? and then of course argue against them?
Click to expand...


And Yurt now pwns the Prophet. :good4u:
 
Yurt said:
incorrect as usual.....the california constitution did not define marriage as between a man and a woman...it simply said.....marriage is a fundamental right...it did not define marriage, so the supreme did not at all change the CA constitution, which is the highest law in the land in CA....

prop 8, if you are honest, changed/amended the CA constitution to define it as between a man and a woman....

as your quote stated, but you of course ignored the salient points that prove you're wrong:



notice that BEFORE 1977 there were no statutes against same-sex marriages, so you need to be honest and admit the law was changed in 1977 to ban gay marriage and since you are against changing the law, you must be intellectual honest and be against the change in 1977....

the facts are unequivocally clear that in CA the law was in fact changed to ban gay marriage....you're either being dishonest by not admitting them or you are very stupid....which is it pampers?

are you going to be honest now and admit the changes in CA? and then of course argue against them?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, you are absolutely right, Yurt. Well done.

So marriage, as define by the state of CA did not restrict it to just a man and a woman. It was only afterwards that the law was changed to define it as one man & one woman.

Funny, that it seems ok when the changes are being made in favor of the conservative side. What about it, PMP? Is the change ok when its in your favor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top