North Carolina: No Gays allowed

[patrickaa317]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

[Frigidus]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Not when you're making arguments about what marriage has always been.

[Bones2484]

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Does anyone know of any polls regarding what percentage of atheists do not support gay marriage?

Good question! I did some google searching and found the following. Looks like in 2010, atheists/agnostics were at about 80% in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... er-than-1/

[Symmetry]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

[patrickaa317]

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, around the same time we have an early definition of marriage, this was also a definition:

"An intimate union; a merging or blending of two things (fig)." Seems pretty similar whether you are referencing same-sex marriage or heterosexual marriage!


--Andy

I found the Oxford dictionary to have the following definition:
1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:
2 a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel

Seems as though your definition may not directly related to marriage and how it relates to people but rather other objects, such as music. Was that the only definition in the Oxford English one?

Perhaps the Oxford one was written by homophobic, racist bigots....

You clearly haven't looked at the OED. I can post the OED's definition, but I'm afraid it won't be yours.

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Not when you're making arguments about what marriage has always been.

I don't remember ever saying that.

[patrickaa317]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

[patrickaa317]

But for gay marriage? How, other than violating your religious beliefs, does this actually affect you? What right do these people have to tell two consenting adults they can't be married (or in North Carolina, can't even have a civil union)?

Does anyone know of any polls regarding what percentage of atheists do not support gay marriage?

Good question! I did some google searching and found the following. Looks like in 2010, atheists/agnostics were at about 80% in favor of gay marriage.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... er-than-1/

And 16% oppose it. Were you able to find any reasons during your searching this?

[Bones2484]

And 16% oppose it. Were you able to find any reasons during your searching this?

Only what was in the comments section, but nothing "official". Part of it seems to be the standard reasons: They were raised conservative and/or religious, or don't believe in gay couples raising children.

Or, a reason that may be unique to this group: it is "anti-Darwin" and "anti-evolution".

[Symmetry]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

[patrickaa317]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.

Then you genuinely are an idiot. Bear in mind that I'm not attacking you as a person- I have no idea who you are. I'm attacking your arguments, and judging you on their poor quality over a consistent period. Indeed, you seem to have regressed to the point of making your arguments in picture format. Endearing in a small child, less so in an adult.

[Symmetry]

Although, to be fair, a smart kid would have drawn their own pictures.

[patrickaa317]

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

Sarcasm:
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sarcasm?region=us

Maybe I'm not the idiot here...

I don't know. I'm not the one posting definitions of sarcasm after an obviously sarcastic post. Here's a picture of a kitten:



If I'm correct, and you are an idiot, your next post will identify my picture as being of a kitten, and feature a definition of the word "kitten" from whatever third rate dictionary you currently employ as a crutch for your inability to argue.

Of course, if your reply doesn't do that, you'll still be an idiot, albeit one who has learned from his mistakes.

Aw shucks, you got me.



Here's one for you.

Then you genuinely are an idiot. Bear in mind that I'm not attacking you as a person- I have no idea who you are. I'm attacking your arguments, and judging you on their poor quality over a consistent period. Indeed, you seem to have regressed to the point of making your arguments in picture format. Endearing in a small child, less so in an adult.

I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

[Symmetry]

I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

[patrickaa317]

I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

Examples of people explaining my mistakes and me being upset in this thread?

[Symmetry]

I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

Examples of people explaining my mistakes and me being upset in this thread?

No need to get defensive, you do accept that you made mistakes in this thread right? Or are you just being a dick and demanding that people explain your mistakes to you again before you acknowledge them?

And seriously? No picture this time? Maybe you are learning.

[2dimes]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

I for one am pretty dissapointed there was not "Scooby Doo ending" answer.

[Symmetry]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

I for one am pretty dissapointed there was not "Scooby Doo ending" answer.

In Scooby Doo, the monster turns out to be an ordinary guy. Here, the idiot turns out to be an idiot. No big reveal, I'm afraid.

[patrickaa317]

I responded in picture format because I thought that might help you out. You seemed to have missed the sarcasm that I posted earlier when you apparently attacked my arguments and not me, despite the below comment.

you're an idiot.

Anyway, this conversation seems to have died out over the last 10-15 posts. Wonder how long until another gay marriage thread starts up and everyone says the same things again.

I apologised for calling you an idiot. Surely you saw that? It does seem to take a fair bit of arguing to get you to admit that you're wrong. You seem more upset about how people explain your mistakes to you than actually admitting them.

Examples of people explaining my mistakes and me being upset in this thread?

No need to get defensive, you do accept that you made mistakes in this thread right? Or are you just being a dick and demanding that people explain your mistakes to you again before you acknowledge them?

And seriously? No picture this time? Maybe you are learning.

lol, that's all i have to say is lol.

[Symmetry]

lol, that's all i have to say is lol.

I don't disagree.

[AndyDufresne]

Isn't the ODO more of the modern version while the OED is basically an old, out of touch, and needs to be revamped version?

Short answer- no.

Longer answer- no, and you're an idiot.

More reasonable answer- no, and you're an idiot, sorry.

I for one am pretty dissapointed there was not "Scooby Doo ending" answer.

--Andy

[Swimmerdude99]

Marriage was designed for couples to have children

People were having children loooooong before marriage was invented. Besides, the form and function of marriage has differed between cultures, and within those cultures it has drastically changed over time. In the modern world, most people get married because they are interested in who they're getting married to, not because of the potential children they might have someday.

Forgive my doubt here, but I have a feeling that the only reason you choose to define marriage that way is because you are looking for a way to argue against gay marriage. Free thinking involves taking some given premises and arriving at a conclusion, but so often when it comes to this issue people take the reverse path. They aren't looking for the best answer, they're looking for a way to get what they want.

Not really, also the point is that marriage between oppossite sex helps the society by procreating and bringing the next set of people into the world. Without the next generation the human race goes extinct. Thus the reason the government (in US anyways) gives certain tax breaks to married couples and couples with kids; it helps society. For "married" gays to get the same incentive defeats the reason they were initially instituted... just my 2 cents.

I'm not against gays or lesbians, I have friends who life that lifestyle, I think it is morally wrong, yet one of my best friends is gay and I don't hate him. I just don't think it is correct morally and 2nd is in my opinion a degeneration of society because it doesn't build society.

[Phatscotty]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

SwimmerDude wins the thread

[chang50]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

SwimmerDude wins the thread

Because thats what really matters,petty point-scoring.F@ck having a serious discussion,and heaven forbid listening to different points of view and learning something..

[Phatscotty]

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman, it also moves society forward, however gay "marriage" would not. You can' have gay "marriage." Marriage was designed for couples to have children and for their relationship to be recognized. The act of gays getting "married" isn't the same thing at all.

SwimmerDude wins the thread

Because thats what really matters,petty point-scoring.F@ck having a serious discussion,and heaven forbid listening to different points of view and learning something..

I have listened to different points of view. I have discussed it with all of you for years. I have discussed with my mother for endless hours, who is firmly in support of gay marriage. I have followed all the stories, saw all the votes and related outcomes of court cases, state legislatures, state constitutional amendments, and I've been watching for quite a while now. I do not go to church and I do not consider myself religious.

I have listened to all sides, and I have made a decision.