Same-sex Marriage.

[Gadianton]

Wade, I'm sorry to interrupt your pity party...

I was accused earlier in the thread of "self-loathing," and now I am being accused of self-pity. I will have to add both to the proliferating list, along with me being the one who is judgemental.

This has been very helpful. I have learned that when a person is given considerable criticism, and appreciatively receives the criticisms, and pleasantly grants the criticism without argument, and acknowledges the criticisms in his/her responses to various queries, this amounts to self-pity, or as others have put it, passive aggression and self-deprecation (feigned, of course).

I am ashamed to say that I didn't know this. Obviously, I am "stupid."

It seems that a person is open to criticism for pleasantly and non-argumentative receiving and acknowledge a wealth of criticisms. Very cool.

...that inevitably follows when your arguments are refuted,

So, not only is my self-pity habitual, but it is also an invariably lame means of escaping refutation (or, as you call it, "surrender").

This must be why I immediately wallowed in distracting self-pity and exited stage left the first time you presumed to have refuted me. You definitely have me pegged.

...but did your copy and paste from your blog mean you would like me to show how those links don't support your arguments?

Of course. It is just that, in keeping with my promise, at best I will have to restrict myself to reading and not responding to your overpowering rejoinders, except to offer appreciation for your effort.

Also, am I to take it that by now deciding that you knew that your own Reason magazine source refuted your thesis, that you deliberately misrepresented what your source said?

Again, of course. Your the man! Who can rationally disagree with your "overwhelming" opinion? Not, me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_thews]

I was accused earlier in the thread of "self-loathing," and now I am being accused of self-pity. I will have to add both to the proliferating list, along with me being the one who is judgmental.

You are being judgmental. Questions for Wade:

1) Why do you seek homosexual men to converse with regarding their orientation?

2) Do you believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice one can change?

3) If being a homosexual is against God's will, why did God create homosexuals?

[_wenglund]

I am torn between showing respect to each participant by responding thoughtfully to their posts, versus living up to my promise to leave the board for wont of edification.

As a solution to this dilemma, I have decided to respond this one last time, and then live up to my promise going forward (which will necessitate my not looking in again and being tempted to resply):

You are being judgmental.

Obviously.

Questions for Wade:

1) Why do you seek homosexual men to converse with regarding their orientation?

I don't. I did seek to cyber-converse briefly for an evening with homosexual men and women over a decade ago, and that was to see what they thought about my ideas at the time. Since then, whatever conversations I have had with homosexuals have been incidental as a part of public discussions with no orientation in particular.

2) Do you believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice one can change?

I don't think it is a conscious choice, and I believe that some homosexuals are able to change.

3) If being a homosexual is against God's will, why did God create homosexuals?

I don't know that God created homosexuals as homosexuals, nor do I suppose that homosexuality had anything to do with why homosexuals were created. They were created for the same reason we all have been created.

Here is a question for you: "What do your questions have to do with the topic of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_just me]

I don't see why continuing to change what marriage is could possibly be seen as a problem. Most of us would find what marriage was 300 years ago very undesirable, anyway. I know I don't.

[_krose]

If I was speaking to the etymology of the English word "marriage," rather than the meaning of the concept across languages, cultures, and time, then you may have a point.

If I may just point out that I was responding to your comment that you were "speaking to... how the word, itself, is essentially defined."

Hmm.

[_palerobber]

4. I am "bizarre" and a "liar" for using the word "result" to mean "follow," when everyone knows that it can only mean "consequence," and "consequence" can only be interpreted in a causal sense.

Wade's blog in 2001:
"LUNC: The release of Windows XP has resulted in the Attacks of September 11..."

[_palerobber]

...and, no doubt, my resounding defeat. You're the best.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry to see you go, Wade. I've tried to focus on your arguments, not you personally. If I've failed, I apologize.

imho, when someone borrows their arguments from hate groups well known for peddling misinformation then they are revealing something about themselves personally, and it warrants a personal response.

[_Darth J]

Yes, Wade. The words that other people wrote and that I can see for myself, and everyone can see for themselves, are just a matter of opinion. Why, some people might be of the opinion that your link to Reason magazine was talking about whether the Avengers would win a fight against the Justice League of America, and who are we to argue with their opinion?

[_Bazooka]

I will raise your Google Machine quote with one of my own:

"The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother)." (See HERE)

If I was speaking to the etymology of the English word "marriage," rather than the meaning of the concept across languages, cultures, and time, then you may have a point.

And, if I were speaking to the secondary connotation (like "married to one's job"), then you may also have a point.

Try as people might to massage the word "marriage" so as to support of their favored position, and this by trotting out various types of marriages and marital practices and connotations, they can't escape the simple fact that, by and large, and throughout the several million years that marriages have been know to occur, and with the rare exceptions cropping up since the mid 1970's, each of those types of marriages included, at the very least, a man and a woman, and not a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

But, here I am embroiled in a dispute, and that is contrary to my aforementioned promise. Shame on me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

Good morning to you, I hope you are well.
In terms of defining what is, or what isn't an acceptable form of marriage - who, in your view, is the authority on that?

[_Runtu]

imho, when someone borrows their arguments from hate groups well known for peddling misinformation then they are revealing something about themselves personally, and it warrants a personal response.

I think we're more effective when we point out the misinformation from the hate groups. That FRC stuff on gay marriage, for example, is seriously dishonest.