Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
PostmodernProphet said:
off the top of my head I don't know what "DOMA" refers to....but if it says marriage is only between a man and a woman it didn't change the definition of marriage....
Click to expand...

defense of marriage act.....in 1996 it codified for the federal code that marriage is between a man and a woman....before that, there was no such definition....thus, the law in fact changed

but i don't expect you to be honest about the changes in laws, you will continue to cowardly ignore huge portions of my post because you know to address all my points your argument fails
 
WinterBorn said:
When something is refined, it is no longer the same as it was before. In other words, it is changed.

Refining usually means removing something (impurities in metal ect). So we will refine the definition of marriage by removing references to gender completely.
Click to expand...
Not according to the definition that I quoted.
 
Southern Man said:
It was not changed, but refined:



m-w.com
Click to expand...

The Mirriam Webster dictionary lists 5 definitions for "refine". Not surprising you picked the one you think helped your side of the argument.

However, it is immoral to be prejudiced against people for what they cannot help, and because of the way they were born.

So completely removing any references to gender in the definition of marriage would be a refinement.

Also, to claim that the only definition of change is "to replace with another" is ridiculous. Any time something becomes any different is is changed.
 
Last edited:
Yurt said:
because you know it destroys your argument, it is cowardly to "claim" you've already answered it....you haven't, thats a fact

i noticed you once again cowardly ignored the bulk of my post....it is getting annoying debating someone who continually ignores the debates

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

but you aren't debating with me......you're apparently debating with someone who gives a fuck about your irrelevant argument...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
but you aren't debating with me......you're apparently debating with someone who gives a fuck about your irrelevant argument...
Click to expand...

translation:

at first i will ignore yurt's points because i can't answer them....then i will later claim that i don't give a fuck....because i'm a dishonest debater...

you're a wuss that can't debate....this is your MO, debate, debate and then when cornered ignore and claim you don't give a fuck....when you think you're winning a debate, you're relentless, you start counting the times people ignore your points....

you're a hypocrite
 
for the 9th time:

the laws that banned interracial marriage....how did that work out for them?

your link proves that the law had to change due to ambiguity....as i said, prior to 1977 there was no ban on gay marriage, marriage was not defined as between a man and a womanyour own research proves that....that law was in fact changed...

how you ignore constitutions is beyond me...how you ignore the fact that CA had to amend its constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....how you ignore the fact that approximately 26 states have had to amend their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman is beyond me....

if the constitution didn't matter, pray tell why CA and the other states had to CHANGE/AMEND their laws in order to ban gay marriage? why are you not against that change? it is intellectually dishonest for you to support that change while arguing that you are against changing the definition to allow homosexual marriage....

and maybe when you finally address the interracial marriage ban, you will see why i keep bringing it up....so i ask again....how did those statutes fair on the ban of interracial marriages? trust me, the scotus will strike down the ban on statutes that define interracial marriages and i believe they will also strike down the constitutional amendments/changes that have altered the definition of marriage to only between a man and a woman....
Click to expand...

2
 
WinterBorn said:
The Mirriam Webster dictionary lists 5 definitions for "refine". Not surprising you picked the one you think helped your side of the argument.

However, it is immoral to be prejudiced against people for what they cannot help, and because of the way they were born.

So completely removing any references to gender in the definition of marriage would be a refinement.
Click to expand...

That's the way the English language works: there are many words that have different meanings. Since I'm comparing the word refine to the word change, it should be obvious that I'm not talking about a chemical process.

Including something that has never been included in the definition of marriage would certainly not be a refinement.
 
Southern Man said:
That's the way the English language works: there are many words that have different meanings. Since I'm comparing the word refine to the word change, it should be obvious that I'm not talking about a chemical process.

Including something that has never been included in the definition of marriage would certainly not be a refinement.
Click to expand...

When I said "remove all mention of gender", did you mistake that for something else?

We would be removing something to make the end product more pure. We would be removing something from the definition to make it more moral as far as our laws are concerned. We would be removing the prejudice from the law. Basically the same as we did in the past.
 
Also, your definition of "refined" would also mean changed. If the end result was not the same as it was in the beginning, it was changed.

To argue otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest.
 
WinterBorn said:
When I said "remove all mention of gender", did you mistake that for something else?

We would be removing something to make the end product more pure. We would be removing something from the definition to make it more moral as far as our laws are concerned. We would be removing the prejudice from the law. Basically the same as we did in the past.
Click to expand...
Let me demonstrate why your argument fails. Remove all mention of age as well.
 
Yurt said:
translation:

at first i will ignore yurt's points because i can't answer them....then i will later claim that i don't give a fuck....because i'm a dishonest debater...

you're a wuss that can't debate....this is your MO, debate, debate and then when cornered ignore and claim you don't give a fuck....when you think you're winning a debate, you're relentless, you start counting the times people ignore your points....

you're a hypocrite
Click to expand...

Yurt just bought and now pwns Prophet.
Remember to be kind to your pet and you might think of neutering.
 
Southern Man said:
Let me demonstrate why your argument fails. Remove all mention of age as well.
Click to expand...

That would then allow children to be abused. And that is a valid reason for not doing so.

As you have said before, society has an obligation to protect the children.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you know....with all this whining going on, I'm no longer willing to tolerate gays......I think it's time they went back in the closet and locked the door.....they're just too damned pushy......
Click to expand...

That appeared to be the obvious agenda of yours, from the beginning.

Don't worry Prophet, you won't be forced to be married to someone gay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top