Clinton (ticket, country, single, Kiss, American) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-11-2008, 09:33 PM   #11 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The 3rd plateau of my mind
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mockingbird! View Post
huh, this argument will go on for a whille, but honestly, i dont see how you can say it is fair to discriminate against homosexuals and not allow them to have a marrrige like any normal man and woman would have. i just basiclly dont see whats is wrong with them being allowed to get married, thats all
Like I said, it's just a personal stubborn belief that I refuse to change. But if it is only a word, why would homosexuals really complain? As long as they get all of the same perks, why can't it be called something else? If I am close-minded, then so are they.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fal View Post
I complain upon principal. Marriage is not a religious ceremony under common law. There's therefore no good reason to deny homosexual union all the rights of, including the label, of marriage. The other option is to disallow the use of the term marriage to apply to non-religious unions.
Are you even paying attention here? No one even mentioned religion. Atheists can marry and call it a "marriage" for all I care. But again, and I am getting tired of reitterating this, I reserve the term "marriage" for a union between a man and a woman, regardless of their religious affiliation.

Quote:
Also, with regards to the abortion topic, TheDonald you're applying a macro approach to what is a micro issue: stating "all abortion should be outlawed" but failing to actually counter-argue the idea that there are special instances, i.e. rape victims instead relying on ad hominems and general dismissals. Bad form old man.
I never said that ALL abortion should be outlawed, infact, I specifically went out of my way to point out that abortion SHOULD be allowed in cases where the mother's life is at risk. Throwing out terms like "ad-hominem" does little to further your point when they in no way apply to my arguments. I specifically addressed each argument that Crowquill raised (the only arguments being the jillions and jillions of unfit, teenage rape victims, and the mothers health being at risk). All you have added to this conversation is bickering without any substantiation whatsoever.
TheDonald is offline  
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.