Interesting Question: Can You Be A Strong Conservative And Support Gay Marriage?

I've gotta jump - but I want to say that it's cool to be able to actually have a discussion with you, TD, even though we disagree. I'm not saying that in any kind of snarky way.
 
Truth Detector said:
Your dishonesty and strawmen are most certainly boring. But expected given your history on this forum.



You don't care about facts.



You're trapped inside your own strawman arguments you construct. That forces your dishonest avoidance of any questions posed to you. Those are the traditional role and purpose of marriage prior to government intervention, and, what is the reason gays need the institution of marriage.

The honest answer to these questions destroy your strawmen.



Poor Thing1; the sky is again falling when you cannot promote strawman claims and false narratives.
Click to expand...

Just a last point - I'm not the one promoting a fertility test, or procreation (which you said was the main factor for marriage previously on this thread), which are both strawmen. Marriage, as we have seen, does not depend on fertility or procreation.

I believe you have things upside down. It is you and Bigdog who are promoting these ideas.
 
PS
"There is no right, federal, state or local, to marriage." CM #247
Click to expand...
- piffle -

It may not be a specifically enumerated Constitutional right.
But it is still protected by our Constitution, in Art.9 BOR.
B. O. R. ARTICLE #9: Ratified December 15, 1791
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Click to expand...
We had a right to marriage on July 3, 1776.
So we retain it today. Buck v. Bell and the Loving decision aside, government is not in a position to decline marriage license to eligible adults.
 
Thing1 said:
What kind of "purpose" do you demand that marriages have?
Click to expand...

More dishonesty; it has been explained numerous times to you on this thread. Why do you pretend it hasn't? Why all the strawmen?

When are you going to explain why gays need the institution of marriage?

Thing1 said:
You brought up the lack of purpose for elderly marriages.
Click to expand...

That is a lie; you brought it up in a weak effort to promote your strawman.

Thing1 said:
Do you honestly thing that the only reason that people get married is to have kids & be parents?
Click to expand...

No, my argument hasn't changed. The purpose and intent of marriage has always been about procreation and the factual knowledge that the best way to raise healthy children is through the devotion of the man and the woman to one another to raise their children.

Thing1 said:
People get married for a wide variety of reasons, all of which distill down to wanting to formalize their union in some way.
Click to expand...

More strawmen; how does that matter in a debate over the purpose of marriage? They certainly don't need the institution of marriage if it is only about shacking up, do they?

Thing1 said:
Who are you & I to judge ANY of those reasons?
Click to expand...

Another strawman, it isn't about judging. That is for a higher authority. It is about the continued breakdown of the family unit and institution of marriage which contributes to societal decay.

Thing1 said:
Again - if you think the ONLY purpose of marriage is to have kids and parent...would you deny marriages to the elderly? Would you deny marriages to others who cannot have children for whatever reason?
Click to expand...

There you go again constructing strawmen a demanding we break them down. That's weak sauce.

I'm still waiting for you to explain why gays need the institution of marriage.
 
Thing1 said:
I've gotta jump - but I want to say that it's cool to be able to actually have a discussion with you, TD, even though we disagree. I'm not saying that in any kind of snarky way.
Click to expand...

It is in the spirit of a good cause you asked to institute.
 
Truth Detector said:
He stated clearly the test was a man a d a woman. You're desperate flailing and strawmen aside, why do cats need the institution of marriage?
Click to expand...

Thingy does not know that what we now call "the honeymoon" was an integral part of marriage. A time period, lasting a full menstrual cycle, where the new bride was forbidden to see ANY man other than her husband, ... in order to guarantee that the husband would be the father of any child produced.
 
Thing1 said:
Can you link the fertility test you're referring to that people who want to get married need to pass?
Click to expand...

Yes, ... thousands of years of human history defining marriage as male and female.

The scotus declared it to be a bigoted institution. On those grounds, they should have banned it from any gov't recognition.
 
Last edited:
"No, my argument hasn't changed. The purpose and intent of marriage has always been about procreation" TD #251
Click to expand...
Piffle.

a) There was procreation many millions of years before there was marriage.

b) There is extramarital procreation to this day. And the stigma of bastardy has subsided. Some reports of Western Europe indicate marriage has become passe.
Children in the backseat can cause accidents.
Accidents in the backseat can cause children.
Click to expand...
 
It is absolutely amazing to me how some people use history/tradition to insist others continue to do something THIS way while also willingly ignoring history and forgoing tradition when it intrudes upon their own lives in some way.

Fucking hypocrites.
 
sear said:
Piffle.

a) There was procreation many millions of years before there was marriage.
Click to expand...

It's not JUST about making babies. I am not surprised the point is lost on liberals.

sear said:
b) There is extramarital procreation to this day.
Click to expand...

Which is creating the societal problems we currently see in Democratic controlled urban sewers.

sear said:
And the stigma of bastardy has subsided.
Click to expand...

Wrong; the stigma lasts forever for those who are conceived out of wedlock and without family structure.

The notion that this isn't the problem is the lie of liberal dogma.


sear said:
Some reports of Western Europe indicate marriage has become passe.
Click to expand...

Western Europe is in decline and paying a price for it. What is passe is the notion that family is unimportant and marriage can men anything we want it to.

I'm still waiting for an answer; why gays need the institution of marriage.
 
Gotcha68 said:
It is absolutely amazing to me how some people use history/tradition to insist others continue to do something THIS way while also willingly ignoring history and forgoing tradition when it intrudes upon their own lives in some way.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely amazing to me how liberals want to pretend that the institution of marriage and family is an inconvenience.

But then, third world shitholism is the ultimate goal of the liberal ideology.

Gotcha68 said:
Fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...

It's apparent that that you're clueless about the definition of hypocrisy. Buy a mirror. It's staring back at you.

Do you moronically believe that the problems in Democratic controlled urban shit holes aren't caused by a lack of morality and family values?
 
J Craft said:
BS- it was liberals who pushed to undo adultery conseuences with divorces. Within a biblical Christian community all sin is condemned. It is also forgiven when repented of. Orthodoxy would not permit a person who has committed adultery to hold a position of leadership within the church polity.
Click to expand...

In other words, so called Christians are very selective when it comes to what part of that orthodoxy that want to enforce -- they take it light on the adulterers -- but want government action taken against gays
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top