'Duck Dynasty' Star Wants To 'Rid The Earth' Of Gay Marriage Supporters

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
... they should make up their own term instead of marriage to describe their sexual titillation of one another that has acquired similar property ownership rights as marriage.

Why?

Also, by your denegration of marriages between two men as mere "sexual titillation of one another" are you claming that two men don't or can't form lasting relationships with each other that are satisfying in all the ways any other committed relationship is?

Finally, how does what other people call their marriages affect you in any way?

They cannot continue their genetic line through the union so it is not the same, hence it needs its own term other than marriage.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Marriage is a word, you can't just "decide" its meaning and then apply it to everyone else. Another group of people has to call their union something else because you think they're yucky? Get over yourself. Words are relative, the meaning you put on on a word is not universal. and that whole "marriage is for procreation" thing is bullsh** too, old people, the infertile, blah blah blah. Quit trying to make your viewpoint logical, because it's only logical from YOUR viewpoint, not a impartial one.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Which question are you answering?

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
... they should make up their own term instead of marriage to describe their sexual titillation of one another that has acquired similar property ownership rights as marriage.

Why?

Also, by your denegration of marriages between two men as mere "sexual titillation of one another" are you claming that two men don't or can't form lasting relationships with each other that are satisfying in all the ways any other committed relationship is?

Finally, how does what other people call their marriages affect you in any way?

They cannot continue their genetic line through the union so it is not the same, hence it needs its own term other than marriage.

What about Married couples who cannot have children to continue their "genetic line through the Union"...

What's their Marriage called?

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Marriage is a word, you can't just "decide" its meaning and then apply it to everyone else. Another group of people has to call their union something else because you think they're yucky? Get over yourself. Words are relative, the meaning you put on on a word is not universal. and that whole "marriage is for procreation" thing is bullsh** too, old people, the infertile, blah blah blah. Quit trying to make your viewpoint logical, because it's only logical from YOUR viewpoint, not a impartial one.

Nope, the word was already taken. The sexual titilators are the ones who are attempting to hijack it. Go ask them why they can't find a unique word to fit their non offspring bearing sexual partnership.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

And what do you call it when a man and a woman are united with a marriage license who cannot or will not continue their genetic line through the union?

Eh, Charlie beat me to it...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
... they should make up their own term instead of marriage to describe their sexual titillation of one another that has acquired similar property ownership rights as marriage.

Why?

Also, by your denegration of marriages between two men as mere "sexual titillation of one another" are you claming that two men don't or can't form lasting relationships with each other that are satisfying in all the ways any other committed relationship is?

Finally, how does what other people call their marriages affect you in any way?

They cannot continue their genetic line through the union so it is not the same, hence it needs its own term other than marriage.

What about Married couples who cannot have children to continue their "genetic line through the Union"...

What's their Marriage called?

A good try, and a trip to the doctor to see if it can be fixed.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Haha! I love it. Like its cut-and-dry and set in stone like that. They need to use a different word for their unions because marriage has a specific definition to me and they're not allowed to use my word. Man, I can't even imagine having so little empathy that you can just make blanket statements like that without choking on your own hypocrisy. Why don't you just say "Cause thats the way it is," or "It ain't natural." all those have about as much reasoning behind them as what you're saying.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Maybe someone in his family could adopt a gay child and it will then cure his homophobia like they cured his racism.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
... they should make up their own term instead of marriage to describe their sexual titillation of one another that has acquired similar property ownership rights as marriage.

Why?

Also, by your denegration of marriages between two men as mere "sexual titillation of one another" are you claming that two men don't or can't form lasting relationships with each other that are satisfying in all the ways any other committed relationship is?

Finally, how does what other people call their marriages affect you in any way?

They cannot continue their genetic line through the union so it is not the same, hence it needs its own term other than marriage.

What about Married couples who cannot have children to continue their "genetic line through the Union"...

What's their Marriage called?

A good try, and a trip to the doctor to see if it can be fixed.

See, that doesn't work if the heterosexual couple is past the age of conceiving, does it? My grandmother remarried her second husband when she was 69. I suppose you want to tell her that it wasn't a marriage?

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

love it

edit to add....forgot to quote your reply "well I guess we are equal "

but did I mention...I love it ☺

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Haha! I love it. Like its cut-and-dry and set in stone like that. They need to use a different word for their unions because marriage has a specific definition to me and they're not allowed to use my word. Man, I can't even imagine having so little empathy that you can just make blanket statements like that without choking on your own hypocrisy. Why don't you just say "Cause thats the way it is," or "It ain't natural." all those have about as much reasoning behind them as what you're saying.

Nope, nature provided the necessity for a union to bear and bring up children. The newborn infant is helpless for years at birth not like a turtle that is well developed to find it's own way.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

marriage is a financial institute, not a breeding institute, not a religious institute.

banning x minority from the same financial rights as anyone else is illegal and intolerant.

if you think marriage is a religious institute, then we would have to pick one religion over another. if it is a christian institute then married women would be nothing more than cattle according to the bible.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
... they should make up their own term instead of marriage to describe their sexual titillation of one another that has acquired similar property ownership rights as marriage.

Why?

Also, by your denegration of marriages between two men as mere "sexual titillation of one another" are you claming that two men don't or can't form lasting relationships with each other that are satisfying in all the ways any other committed relationship is?

Finally, how does what other people call their marriages affect you in any way?

They cannot continue their genetic line through the union so it is not the same, hence it needs its own term other than marriage.

What about Married couples who cannot have children to continue their "genetic line through the Union"...

What's their Marriage called?

A good try, and a trip to the doctor to see if it can be fixed.

See, that doesn't work if the heterosexual couple is past the age of conceiving, does it? My grandmother remarried her second husband when she was 69. I suppose you want to tell her that it wasn't a marriage?

Yeah that is not a real marriage, but anyone not knowing them would assume they grew old together and raised children would they not? They fit in just fine, don't worry about them.

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: TinfoilTP

marriage is a financial institute, not a breeding institute, not a religious institute.

banning x minority from the same financial rights as anyone else is illegal and intolerant.

if you think marriage is a religious institute, then we would have to pick one religion over another. if it is a christian institute then married women would be nothing more than cattle according to the bible.

Who's banning them? Just get an appropriate term that gives the same legal status.

You know TINfoilTP, this works both ways. "Technically" the word marriage means "combining" or "Coming together." I can marry a electrical plug with an outlet without needing a priest, but your holy union requires one. So why can't you just call your marriages "Holy Unions," or even better, "Kiddushin," the original hebrew word for marriage-before-god and leave the regular old "marriage" to the unholy ones?

originally posted by: Slanter
You know TINfoilTP, this works both ways. "Technically" the word marriage means "combining" or "Coming together." I can marry a electrical plug with an outlet without needing a priest, but your holy union requires one. So why can't you just call your marriages "Holy Unions," or even better, "Kiddushin," the original word for marriage-before-god and leave the regular old "marriage" to the unholy ones?

Sorry, the word is already taken. To hijack it is a purposeful act to invoke conflict.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

there is no need to create a new title. the only one that wants to create a new title is you and people that think like you.

you didnt address my points.

it is easier to not discriminate a minority than to rewrite a system that has taken many years to forge.

apparently not discriminating x minority means hijacking to you. irrational, there is not much point in arguing you only to show your hypocrisy and bigotry.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Sorry, a specific group of people can't appropriate and decide the "actual" definition of something, no matter how self-serving or deluded they are. That's why nobody agrees with what you're saying, because it's not true. It might be true for you, but the rest of us don't have to follow your rules.

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Sorry, a specific group of people can't appropriate and decide the "actual" definition of something, no matter how self-serving or deluded they are. That's why nobody agrees with what you're saying, because it's not true. It might be true for you, but the rest of us don't have to follow your rules.

Not my rules, it's nature. You cannot change nature. Which is what gays argue anyway.