d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Health Insurance Vs Car Accidents > Duffington Post Exclusive
Prev191011
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 33,451
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Sep 24 2017 08:03pm
Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 24 2017 10:02pm)
Keep nipping at my heels young one.


I wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole. Don't flatter your fat self.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Sep 24 2017 08:04pm
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Sep 24 2017 08:08pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Sep 24 2017 08:03pm)
I wouldn't touch you with a ten foot pole. Don't flatter your fat self.


Keep telling yourself that.

While you keep barking.
Member
Posts: 31,203
Joined: Sep 26 2008
Gold: 0.00
Sep 24 2017 11:12pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 24 2017 03:58pm)
You're a broken record. Women being treated like property or polygamy does not negate the fact that marriage, defined as union between man and women is truth historically. Let me reiterate this for the 15th time the argument is not the dynamics of marriage (inequality, or whatever else.) but the historical understanding that it's precisely between a male and a female.

Even the cultures that had common place homosexuality had the definition i'm using. Pointing to crazy Nero or some other anecdotal "proof" that marriage was actually also between same sexes and accepted is nonsense. You can't point to .001% of historical marriages being between same sexes and say well actually marriage also meant this. It's very easy to find outliers in thousands of years of history. Outliers do not define conventional meaning and understanding for 99.99% of people.


"If we ignore facts, you'll see I am correct."

lol you can't make this shit up. :rofl:

Nearly every society outside of those based on the Abrahamic religions had non-heterosexual marriage.

This isn't just a few isolated cases. These are tribes and societies ranging from the Roman Empire to Native Americans to Buddhists in Thailand.

Just because you're willfully ignorant of those groups doesn't mean the rest of us are.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Sep 25 2017 06:16am
Quote (sylvannos @ Sep 24 2017 11:12pm)
"If we ignore facts, you'll see I am correct."

lol you can't make this shit up. :rofl:

Nearly every society outside of those based on the Abrahamic religions had non-heterosexual marriage.

This isn't just a few isolated cases. These are tribes and societies ranging from the Roman Empire to Native Americans to Buddhists in Thailand.

Just because you're willfully ignorant of those groups doesn't mean the rest of us are.


It's really hard to stay conservative and be knowledgeable about history pre-1950.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Sep 25 2017 06:18am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 25 2017 07:16am)
It's really hard to stay conservative and be knowledgeable about history pre-1950.


Just don't count tan people or Slavs.
Member
Posts: 25,217
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 6,351.00
Sep 25 2017 09:00am
Quote (sylvannos @ Sep 24 2017 10:12pm)
"If we ignore facts, you'll see I am correct."

lol you can't make this shit up. :rofl:

Nearly every society outside of those based on the Abrahamic religions had non-heterosexual marriage.

This isn't just a few isolated cases. These are tribes and societies ranging from the Roman Empire to Native Americans to Buddhists in Thailand.

Just because you're willfully ignorant of those groups doesn't mean the rest of us are.


So... the statistical prevalence of those societies having non-heterosexual marriage bears no meaning on what is the conventional understanding of what the overwhelming majority of that culture defines marriage to be? You probably didn't even bother to read the part about the root of the word marriage and how it goes back to Roman times in which they actually define it the way i do.


Let me give this a try,

Let's say 1/1000000 people have a mutation resulting in the being born with two dicks. By your logic being born with two dicks is absolutely typical and conventional physiology. Am i doing this right?
Member
Posts: 11,801
Joined: Nov 21 2008
Gold: 1,002.00
Warn: 10%
Sep 25 2017 09:26am
Quote (ofthevoid @ 25 Sep 2017 16:00)
So... the statistical prevalence of those societies having non-heterosexual marriage bears no meaning on what is the conventional understanding of what the overwhelming majority of that culture defines marriage to be? You probably didn't even bother to read the part about the root of the word marriage and how it goes back to Roman times in which they actually define it the way i do.


Let me give this a try,

Let's say 1/1000000 people have a mutation resulting in the being born with two dicks. By your logic being born with two dicks is absolutely typical and conventional physiology. Am i doing this right?


"conventional" is just makes something less of more common. Ppl here might have started understanding each other if this was not presented as another "fact" to prove your definition of marriage (which I believe you still do).
If marriage were only to be a bond for only opposed sexes and would have only been a social construct to get more babies in a stable environment. We wouldn't have as many examples of societies using the construct to make it more of a bond for life.

Their definition of marriage is not conventional for you, yet still their definition is conventional for them.

This post was edited by Knaapie on Sep 25 2017 09:30am
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Sep 25 2017 01:11pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Sep 25 2017 09:00am)
So... the statistical prevalence of those societies having non-heterosexual marriage bears no meaning on what is the conventional understanding of what the overwhelming majority of that culture defines marriage to be? You probably didn't even bother to read the part about the root of the word marriage and how it goes back to Roman times in which they actually define it the way i do.


Let me give this a try,

Let's say 1/1000000 people have a mutation resulting in the being born with two dicks. By your logic being born with two dicks is absolutely typical and conventional physiology. Am i doing this right?


You've somehow combined a shitty straw-man with a huge movement of the goal-posts into one post.
Member
Posts: 20,223
Joined: Apr 30 2008
Gold: 5,169.82
Sep 27 2017 01:47am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Sep 25 2017 04:08am)
Keep telling yourself that.

While you keep barking.


I wouldn't describe EndlessSky's posts as barking. Yelping is more accurate.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Sep 27 2017 06:16am
Quote (Leevee @ Sep 27 2017 01:47am)
I wouldn't describe EndlessSky's posts as barking. Yelping is more accurate.


True

He's not nearly alpha enough to be anything large enough to bark.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev191011
Add Reply New Topic New Poll