Search results

Okay, this seems suspicious to me. The site is xbox360nextgennow.com, which doesn’t seem like an official Microsoft site. Plus, you have to sign in to your account when you get there. How do you know it’s not a fake site trying to steal people’s passwords?

Okay, let's break this down and sum it up: 1. Last time I checked, it WAS enough of a legal argument to prevent gay marriage. Most states still do not recognize gay marriage. The legal argument is on the side of marriage, not the side of gay marriage. 2. Civil unions do not have to be 100%...

The problem with that in cases of personal belief, you don't need anyone else to agree with you. If you feel that it harms your beliefs, then it does. Exactly. And gay couples can demand to be treated equally to straight couples. There is no need for them to be considered married. Last time...

Okay, let's break it down. Let's drop the whole "aberrant behavior" thing, because it is just mucking things up. Let me add a few new terms: L(X) = legalization of X R(X) = restriction of X (opposite of L(X)) S(X) = arguments in support of X So, here's what I'm proving: Assume: 0. L(X) and...

No, you're just happy to respect someone else's beliefs long enough to co-opt them, twist them into something different, and act surprised when they get upset. What if they ARE harming you, but no one else agrees with you? What then? Here's the situation we are in: The gay people feel like...

Okay, so you have no problem with being decent to your fellow human beings when it comes to being handicapped. But when it comes to respecting other people's personal beliefs, you don't care. Those same benefits could be extended to civil unions. You're acting as if it's impossible to give...

No, it's perfectly valid logic. It's called reductio ad absurdum, and it's been used as a method of debate for thousands of years. See, you can stop right there. There is nothing in the traditional definition of marriage that says anything about race. Some people may have claimed that, but...

Look, you’re missing the point entirely: The point is that the exact same arguments that are used to support gay marriage can also be used to support polygamy. "It doesn't hurt anyone": check. "The government shouldn't get involved in what people do privately": check. "They just want to be...

So wait a minute…are you saying that handicapped people have the right to park in a handicapped space, but you don't have that same right? How is that fair? How is that constitutional? Shouldn't all Americans have the same rights? So , if "separate is never equal" as you say, then how is it...

Wrong. Black. White. Male. Female. Handicapped. All separate groups, but given equal rights under the law. Guess what? The Defense of Marriage Act, that is a possible amendment to the Constitution, has civil unions as one of its provisions, and guarantees that civil unions are given the same...

Then by that argument, if gay people are allowed to have civil unions that provide all the same legal rights as marriage, then they do not have the right to be upset, just because it's not called "marriage." It is not enough legally to claim that gay civil unions are somehow less valid than...

I never said that they were the same; I said that the same arguments could be applied to both of them, so if you agree with one, you must either agree with the other, or show how they should have different legal status. Many people (including some on this group) have said that they agree with...

I doubt that civilization will end if gay marriage is legalized; it will just continue the trivialize and diminish the meaning of "marriage" even further, and our society will suffer as a result. And mark my words, it will open the door for polygamous marriages. No one on this forum has been...

So change "veterans" to "black," or some other characteristic that is well defined. Why should only black Americans have the right to be black? They have a right that I don't! Shouldn't I be able to apply for government status to be recognized as black? Again, great, fine. They have the...

Okay, forget about the benefits for a minute; don't you think that veterans would still be harmed if anyone were able to apply for veteran status, without having to fight in a war? They can make a commitment to each other, and they can even have the same legal benefits. I don't have a problem...

1. Changing the definition of "marriage" from "a union between a man and a woman" to "a union between two people" is more that a new connotation, meaning, or shading; it's a complete redefinition. 2. If you start redefining words just to be more inclusive, it minimizes and trivializes the...

>sigh< No, the definition of "men" did not change over time. The only thing that changed was the privileges that the government allowed various groups. Allowing certain people to have certain privileges doesn't change the definition of "people."

No, I am refuting your false claims, and I can see why you would get tired or arguing when you are so obviously incorrect. Just concede the point and we can both move on.

Well put. The point is: A person can validly claim that the Bible condemns gay marriage, but not believe that the Bible condemns contraception. Happy?

If you want to get technical, it is the specifics which are fuzzy, not the context; the context is perfectly clear: Onan was commanded to continue his brother's line, he did not, and he was struck down by God for it. In context, it seems very clear that the disobedience is what he was punished...