Should same sex marriage be legal?

smoothie

@RickeyD I didn't think you could. Your religion is your entire personality, you have no opinions of your own, you are a shell of a person and cannot debate. I recommend finding a religious forum instead of continuing your presence here.

RickeyD said:

please, just mute me and go away...

You beg to stop being judged after everything you have said? That is disgraceful. You should own up to your actions here.

ZeusAres42

  @RickeyD

No, your beliefs are not founded on reason, not by a long shot! You are basing all of your arguments on a book that over centuries has gone through multiple transmissions, modifications, various translations, multiple interpretations, editions, re-editions, updation, and modifications, and that has also lead to hundreds of denomonitaitons and taxonomies.

And guess what? This was all done by mere fallible human beings. No human is infallible. Humans wrote the Bible, and therefore the Bible is not infallible either. Also, the idea of God and other things in the Bible is an unfalsifiable one which means it cannot be tested to be true or false; so you only have your blind faith to rely on!

And here's another thing  - while you may know many stories of the Bible it's very clear that you have no idea about its history; it's the origin and how it came to be what it is today!

RickeyD

@smoothie ; Again, this forum provides you the option to mute participants that you don't want to hear from. Just mute me and my messages/comments will not be a bother.

ZeusAres42

@RickeyD

ZeusAres42

@RickeyD AKA @TKDB

RickeyD

@ZeusAres42 ; Do you have a question?  I don't play GIF's and videos from atheists.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

You're being off topic.

And I don't have an alias.

ZeusAres42

@RickeyD

Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person. Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Should same sex marriage be legal? 

It's legalized, if a Liberal Politician is fishing for votes from some of the LGBTQ community?

A positive, is that at least some of the same sex couples have adopted babies, and have given those babies a home.

But in the same light of children, when two guys, or two ladies, get into a relationship, or get married, and can't biologically have kids, does that or does that not diminish society down, by maybe not having kids?

In some countries, if a couple have a boy, the boy is kept, but if the couple finds out, they are going to have a girl, the baby girl gets aborted? 

RickeyD

@TKDB ; @ZeusAres42 ; Please don't go into rocket science and I do not share an account with @TKDB.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Why are you being off topic?

"Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person."

"Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling."

And what is going on with your foul language?

John_C_87

Happy_Killbot said:

@John_C_87 I'm sorry, can you please clarify what you mean?

I googled "biniVir and Unosmulier" and got no clear hits in relationship to homosexuality.

Can you please define those terms, and/or restate your argument, because right now this seems to be the sole place on the internet that uses those terms.

 Binvir is a witnessing title I have given to a public union formed as likelihood between to men as a legal bond.

Unosmulier is a witness title I have given to a public union formed as likelihood between to woman as legal bond.

A witness does not have to speak in there native language to be a witness in a social verbal contract made with others in a society. If I don't see a marriage between a man and woman I cannot lie and say one takes place without risk.

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

Why are you being off topic?

"Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person."

"Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling."

And what is going on with your foul language?

@TKDB

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Happy_Killbot

Yeah, John is known for having penned his very own dictionary and thesaurus... Maybe he thought it sounded latin and that it would, for some reason, give his comment an aura of academic validity.

It's a fail obviously...

Maybe, however the legality of same gender marriage goes challenged publicly often. Do you see one legal objection raised to Binivir or Unosmulier here tonight? I do not. speak now or forever hold you peace. legal issues always make me cry.

Happy_Killbot

@John_C_87

Marriage licences come from a courthouse, it is legally binding.

The ceremony is just for konfety and plach.

You need not be a pedantic witness the ceremony to constitute Binvir or Unosmulier, with the exception that in states that currently ban same-sex marriage the zgoda is not considered to be nkwenye, but this should be self evident based on the memetic structure of any post-colonial nations.

I rest my case.

P.S. Please no more word salad. No one likes word salad. You don't make friends with word salad.

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

"Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person."

"Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling."

https://www.billprickett.com/brain-bubbles/encountering-holy-trolls

"These days, anyone who maintains a strong online presence knows about Internet Trolls—those who post comments solely intended to disrupt the conversation and/or upset those involved. Their tactics include shaming, name-calling, profanity, exaggerated claims and mindless rebuttals. They like the conflict and the attention when people challenge them."

"Whitney Phillips, a media studies and communications scholar has an entire book from her research about Trolls, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things. She notes that Trolls tend to be male, and most often target women, people of color and LGBT people."

"Rumor has it there are secret, online sites made up exclusively for Trolls, designed to help and encourage them in their trouble-making quests. The Troll phenomenon is so prevalent, they’ve become a focus of psychological studies, defining and describing them in terms of a personality disorder, such as narcissism, sadism, racism, misogyny, homophobia and a Machiavellian need to manipulate. The experts agree the only way to respond to Trolls is NOT to respond. “Don’t feed the Trolls!”

"A Troll is different than a Spammer—those folks who repeatedly posts unrelated links in the comment section. Also, someone who disagrees with a subject doesn’t make them a Troll. So, the Tea Party Republican friend from high school, who only watches Fox News and listens exclusively to Rush Limbaugh is probably not a Troll. Nor is that Pentecostal aunt who thinks Ted Cruz is a godly Christian. When I get Trolls. I usually try to engage them...once, to determine if they’re trolling or just an aggressive, opinionated person. (I get those as well.)

Some reference material, in regards to your trolling commentary. 

John_C_87

Before you go grammar on me Plaffelvohefn a BiniVir can be a union of two men but as a witness account it is a united state for all men to be created equal as witness, so therefore to men. 
Ditto for the ladies.....

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

You're off-topic. This is the theme of the Forum:

Should same sex marriage be legal?

Do you perhaps need any mentors to help you with comprehending this question at all?

ZeusAres42

@TKDB

You're off-topic. This is the theme of the Forum:

Should same sex marriage be legal?

Do you perhaps need any mentors to help you with comprehending this question at all?

TKDB said:

@ZeusAres42

"Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account. It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person."

"Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling."

https://www.billprickett.com/brain-bubbles/encountering-holy-trolls

"These days, anyone who maintains a strong online presence knows about Internet Trolls—those who post comments solely intended to disrupt the conversation and/or upset those involved. Their tactics include shaming, name-calling, profanity, exaggerated claims and mindless rebuttals. They like the conflict and the attention when people challenge them."

"Whitney Phillips, a media studies and communications scholar has an entire book from her research about Trolls, This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things. She notes that Trolls tend to be male, and most often target women, people of color and LGBT people."

"Rumor has it there are secret, online sites made up exclusively for Trolls, designed to help and encourage them in their trouble-making quests. The Troll phenomenon is so prevalent, they’ve become a focus of psychological studies, defining and describing them in terms of a personality disorder, such as narcissism, sadism, racism, misogyny, homophobia and a Machiavellian need to manipulate. The experts agree the only way to respond to Trolls is NOT to respond. “Don’t feed the Trolls!”

"A Troll is different than a Spammer—those folks who repeatedly posts unrelated links in the comment section. Also, someone who disagrees with a subject doesn’t make them a Troll. So, the Tea Party Republican friend from high school, who only watches Fox News and listens exclusively to Rush Limbaugh is probably not a Troll. Nor is that Pentecostal aunt who thinks Ted Cruz is a godly Christian. When I get Trolls. I usually try to engage them...once, to determine if they’re trolling or just an aggressive, opinionated person. (I get those as well.)

Some reference material, in regards to your trolling commentary. 

FYI, a great description of yourself there. Were you currently looking in in the mirror when you copied and pasted this?

Dee

 @John_C_87

Has tried  to prove god through math in the past (I'm not kidding) and most of what he says is utter nonsense 

@TKDB


is the resident Sea Lion and spends his days Sea Lioning as one would expect from such a creature , he never argues a point or offers an opinion but copies and pastes others opinions instead, every statement he makes ends with a question mark and he nearly always asks " what has mr Dawkins got to say about his atheist rhetoric" etc etc

He hasn't mentioned Dawkins in a week I think his man crush with him is over

@RickeyD
Is one those religious Westboro type idiots who unfortunately the U S seem to produce at a fairly consistent rate, he seems to be one of those Bible Belt types who for "entertainment " reads bible verses to the family or when he wants to adventurous plays the jug much to the "joy" of his long suffering family

There are still others you haven't met yet so you're in for a treat.....BTW welcome to the site your contributions show you to be a welcome and much needed addition to the site 

@Happy_Killbot

TKDB

@ZeusAres42

Proof of your off topic troll running:

"Don't worry, just like we muted your the last account we'll do the same with this one. Have fun with your dumb trolling TKDB now on a multi-account."

"It doesn't take a rocket scientists to work out you're both the same person."

"Any, like I said - good luck with your Bullsh*t trolling."

And who is "We?"

Is there an Atheist dictatorship, around?

TKDB

@Dee

Proof of you off topic Troll running:

"is the resident Sea Lion and spends his days Sea Lioning as one would expect from such a creature,"

"he never argues a point or offers an opinion but copies and pastes others opinions instead,"

"every statement he makes ends with a question mark and he nearly always asks " what has mr Dawkins got to say about his atheist rhetoric"

"He hasn't mentioned Dawkins in a week I think his man crush with him is over."

Because you lamented over Dawkins:

Apparently this Atheist, is the #1 Atheist in the world?

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-atheists-in-the-world-today/

"1Peter Singer (b. 1946)

Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Born in Melbourne, he is one of the world’s most controversial philosophers. A Utilitarian in ethics, he believes that only sentience, not species membership, confers moral value. This leads him to ascribe greater moral value to healthy adult nonhuman mammals than to unborn, newborn, mentally defective, and comatose humans. Singer has written: “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” We believe his blend of philosophical sophistication, extremism, and high public profile makes him the most formidable living atheist in the world."

"Books: Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Expanding Circle, Rethinking Life and Death, Writings on an Ethical Life, Unsanctifying Human Life, and The Life You Can Save "

Are you a part of the "We?"

Dee

@TKDB

You've just proved everything I said about you 

*****Because you lamented over Dawkins:

What are you even talking about you idiotic creature?

How did I "lament " exactly bet you cannot answer yet again?

Dee

@TKDB

BTW our good friend @Plaffelvohfen kindly left you a Butt -Hurt report to fill out and just to clarify if none of the sections serve the reason for your Butt-Hurt you can use a separate sheet ......I also offered you a crate of frozen fish of your choice as I know Sea Lions love them I’m deeply upset you haven’t specified the type you want or what location are you a Northern Pacific Sea Lion by any chance?

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42 ;
I have a legal objection on why a man cannot be married to another man, plus a woman cannot be married to another woman. I pronounce them as Binivir and UnosMulier. Marriage, BiniVir and UnosMulier are clearly not the same public likely-hood.

The question is do you have a legal objection to bind three clearly deferent public likelihoods with three Title as 1st Amendment filed grievance?  

Start speaking English John and someone might actually have a discussion with you.

Its only a request for legal objection, no answer is simple no legal objection ZeusAres42 which means  legal union has been reached as united state until such time a legal objection to the private union takes place. No Rush.

John_C_87

Dee said:

@Happy_Killbot

Thats John for you he has a personal dictionary full of such terms 

Yeah...true but it is only one page.:)

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaRedeemed The government shouldnt be involved in marriage at all.  If they were out of it there would be no problem.

John_C_87

@Dee ;
 @John_C_87
Has tried to prove god through math in the past (I'm not kidding) and most of what he says is utter nonsense 

I proved the numbers 400, 11, and 500 as an axiom could be confused by any-one easily with a word GOD to which is re-established every day...….
400 has a historic written character of G, 11 has a history in written character of O, while the 500 has a history character of D.


Take the nonsense challenge. Which choice is the sensible word GOD in this complete representation?


(A.) 400,11.500 (B.) GOD (C.)GOD (D.) NONE

HINT: It can only be nonsense when numbers and letters are not labeled in a basic way which tells them apart...

ZeusAres42

TKDB said:

@Dee

Proof of you off topic Troll running:

"is the resident Sea Lion and spends his days Sea Lioning as one would expect from such a creature,"

"he never argues a point or offers an opinion but copies and pastes others opinions instead,"

"every statement he makes ends with a question mark and he nearly always asks " what has mr Dawkins got to say about his atheist rhetoric"

"He hasn't mentioned Dawkins in a week I think his man crush with him is over."

Because you lamented over Dawkins:

Apparently this Atheist, is the #1 Atheist in the world?

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-atheists-in-the-world-today/

"1Peter Singer (b. 1946)

Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Born in Melbourne, he is one of the world’s most controversial philosophers. A Utilitarian in ethics, he believes that only sentience, not species membership, confers moral value. This leads him to ascribe greater moral value to healthy adult nonhuman mammals than to unborn, newborn, mentally defective, and comatose humans. Singer has written: “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” We believe his blend of philosophical sophistication, extremism, and high public profile makes him the most formidable living atheist in the world."

"Books: Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, The Expanding Circle, Rethinking Life and Death, Writings on an Ethical Life, Unsanctifying Human Life, and The Life You Can Save "

Are you a part of the "We?"

The bit I just highlighted in Bold was hilarious.

Dee

@ZeusAres42

The Sea Lion does say some things that are truly hilarious the tragedy being he actually thinks  they are pearls of wisdom 

John_C_87

smoothie said:

In here before the @RickeyD tirade...

It is the union of two consenting adults loving each other. The gender does not matter nor is race or status. Marriage exists outside of the scope of religion as the ultimate bond between two humans. The people getting married can decide how much of religion should be apart of the marriage, marriage is not exclusive to christians and does not belong to them. Marriage should not even have to go through a higher power, it is a private affair between two humans. Attempting to suppress marriage between two consenting adults is ultimately authoritarian ignorance and people who attempt to should find other things to do instead of being so involved with adults private lives in the bedroom...

This is a fallacy for a likelihood with the public must be witnessed by the public. Marriage exists in the scope of law and how a witness of likelihood in treated in favor or against matters. 

MayCaesar

@TKDB

What does "#1 Atheist" mean? #1 at what? Atheism is not a contest; it is just a system of views.

I personally do not resonate with Dawkins' crusade. In my opinion, religion is not relevant enough - or worthy enough, for that matter - to take it seriously, and the best approach to criticising it is to throw short dismissive comments, making it clear that seriously discussing fantasy worlds is beneath you.
Dawkins, on the other hand, takes it overly seriously, and I would even say that he has become a zealot at this point. He makes picking fights with religious people one of his primary behavioral modes, and he has let his emotions get the best of him more than once.
Dawkins' activities demonstrate well how not to criticise religion.

You should not assume that Dawkins is somehow representative of the average atheist. Most of us do not pay much heed to religion; it is simply not a noticeable part of our lives.

John_C_87

MichaelElpers said:

@YeshuaRedeemed The government shouldnt be involved in marriage at all.  If they were out of it there would be no problem.

In basic principle a marriage is a documentation of an notification of intention to create offspring and perform an immigration by a man and woman. A basic idea that any two people can be married is an attack on a legal witness. The idea couples of the same gender may desire to turn it into a business is not all together wrong, just possibly illegal when done incorrectly, as they are still capable of producing an immigration on their own as a marriage and BiniVir or Unosmulier bind couples unlike a civil union to a basic legal witness account. 

That a person does not know, and is not asked directly in a legal sense if they feel or have felt threatened as a witness, in a requested  testimony to a malpractice of law. It is criminally irony as it is taking place in a forum of debate in which the illegal act of same gender marriage is recognized in writing, and a witness is bantered, bullied, and ignored by refusal of confirmation to the public account of a witness for stating a basic truth.

@MayCaesar ;
TKDB is an uncreatable witness...…..In direct contradiction to notification of a constitutional right insured by basic laws with legal precedent there is a insistence to take part in a public witness tampering. @MayCaesar By the powers entrust to me by those who request a public witness do you MayCaesar object to the legal unions created by Binivir and UnosMulier? Speak now for forever hold your peace so help you affirmation or GOD?

John_C_87

@smoothie

 It is very relevant a witness must be give a clear and general legal guideline to be observed in a public likelihood. In the case of mixed genders it is  a simple kiss that demonstrates the willingness to have children. Meaning a citizen will be created between the couple and added to the Nation. This does not exist for a couple of the same gender and the kiss is not a demonstration of reproduction which would be a means to create a citizen as united state between all men and woman.

Obstruction of a witness on an official document can be a serious issue even when the witness does not understand the importance of there place in the likelihood being observed. Sadly you do not have a choice of relevance on a moment to voice legal objection. Some one can base a objection of religious ground without knowing full detail. Again do you object to Binivir or UnosMulier speak now or forever hold your piece. A legal public likelihood's creation insures United State publicly can and could have had representation state and federally on a legal level. Failing to answer with yes and no means you have no legal objection to this public change made on venue to liberty.