i want a debate against holyrollers

[robdastud]

who wants to debate me??

[klaatu]

What do you want to debate about? The word hollyrollers? That you can justify hate towards a group? That holyrollers are anti gay? That holyrollers hate you? Be specific ....

[$$RichRepublican$$]

gay marriage.

[$$RichRepublican$$]

how do they declare winners?? is there a vote?

[Damocles]

I've been thinking about a Poll... However there are simply too many troll accounts to make it accurate. If people don't care about the slight inaccuracies I'll make a poll available after the debate in The War Zone to determine the "winner"...

[$$RichRepublican$$]

make a poll damo...

[LadyT]

You can see who voted for what on the polls in this forum and can't you tell who has more than one account?

[Damocles]

You can see who voted for what on the polls in this forum and can't you tell who has more than one account?

I can tell, but I'd make this one so that others could not tell who voted in which direction. It is an option when making the poll...

Or does open voting appeal more to people?

[klaatu]

Well ... I'll debate you on gay marriage .. but there might be a problem ..., Im not against the rights of a civil union between the same sex .. I believe marriage to be a religous institution and the state does not have the right to interfere or even sanction marriage. Two different concepts.

[$$RichRepublican$$]

polls are fun, even if they are skewed.

[OrnotBitwise]

Well ... I'll debate you on gay marriage .. but there might be a problem ..., Im not against the rights of a civil union between the same sex .. I believe marriage to be a religous institution and the state does not have the right to interfere or even sanction marriage. Two different concepts.
You oppose the licensing of marriages? If so then you're effectively legalizing same sex marriage.

Not that I object, you understand; I just wanted to keep that clear. :cof1:

[$$RichRepublican$$]

Well ... I'll debate you on gay marriage .. but there might be a problem ..., Im not against the rights of a civil union between the same sex .. I believe marriage to be a religous institution and the state does not have the right to interfere or even sanction marriage. Two different concepts.


well not to get into it now if we debate, but you do know that marriage USED TO BE A MEANS of people owning their property... it was about property rights...

[OrnotBitwise]

well not to get into it now if we debate, but you do know that marriage USED TO BE A MEANS of people owning their property... it was about property rights...
It still is, primarily. The only other functions the institution has are somewhat ephemeral. They're emotional and personal, not social.

[LadyT]

I'd prefer anon. voting. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[OrnotBitwise]

I'd prefer anon. voting. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.
I think that how people vote in a poll can be hidden. It's just a preference you select when setting the poll up.

[LadyT]

It can definitely be hidden Ornot. Damo was asking my preference for the head to head debates.

[Cypress]

who wants to debate me??

I think I've got Rick Santorum's talking points down, and could debate the opposite side against you:

Gay marriage is the same as man on dog sex - people will start demanding the right to marry their pets.

Gay marriage will create perverts out of the adopted children of gay partners.

Gay marriage will be the dowfall of american civilization

[LadyT]

I'll debate you on why Jersey is better than Connecticut.

[robdastud]

ok

[OrnotBitwise]

Anyone want to debate on Rick Santorum? My position is that he's a disgrace. I'm looking for someone to defend the notion that he's just an embarrassment.

[IHateGovernment]

Rob and Ornot I'll argue those points with you. I can revert to myself at 16 years old for those purposes if you wish.

[robdastud]

i don't debate people who condone killing puppies.

[LadyT]

Jersey: Bigger shore, more gambling, less taxes
Ct: Even crazier drivers, more taxes, Lieberman

[robdastud]

Jersey-Newark, Elizabeth, Atlantic City, Martha Stewart
Conn - Westport, Fairfield, Paul Newman, UCONN.

[OrnotBitwise]

Rob and Ornot I'll argue those points with you. I can revert to myself at 16 years old for those purposes if you wish.
LOL! A quick application of Calvin's Transmogrifier, perhaps?

[Cypress]

Oh, c'mon.

Debating which is better - Jersey or Conn. - is the equivalent of debating which is better: brussel sprouts or lima beans.



j/k

[OrnotBitwise]

Rob and Ornot I'll argue those points with you. I can revert to myself at 16 years old for those purposes if you wish.
I do wonder, though, if it might be possible to get something worthwhile going on the definition of marriage. Is the primary purpose of marriage the begetting of children or is that just a side issue? Not quite sure how to phrase it effectively, but I can see a pretty good donnybrook in it.

[OrnotBitwise]

Oh, c'mon.

Debating which is better - Jersey or Conn. - is the equivalent of debating which is better: brussel sprouts or lima beans.



j/k
That's not even a question. Lima beans, of course.

[LadyT]

Jersey-Newark, Elizabeth, Atlantic City, Martha Stewart
Conn - Westport, Fairfield, Paul Newman, UCONN.


I'd name CT cities, but most of them are irrelevent and no one would know what I'm talking about. I will say one though: Hartford.

If Martha Stewart is from Jersey, I'd like to point out at the time she became a felon, she lived in CT.

[robdastud]

did i ever tell you i was on martha radio?

[LadyT]

Oh, c'mon.

Debating which is better - Jersey or Conn. - is the equivalent of debating which is better: brussel sprouts or lima beans.

j/k

:rolleyes:

[LadyT]

did i ever tell you i was on martha radio?


I don't think so, I think you told me you went to a taping of some sort, but I culd be lying.

[robdastud]

yeah we went to the taping and i asked a question for martha radio, and they asked it on sirus or something and martha answered my question!!! it was all like Rob from Enfield CT has a question. then there i was on martha radio!!!

[LadyT]

That's cool, I was on the CSPAN call in show once! The question was about whether or not cheney shooting that old man was a big deal. I can understand how excited you were.

[Damocles]

That's cool, I was on the CSPAN call in show once! The question was about whether or not cheney shooting that old man was a big deal. I can understand how excited you were.

I hope you told them about the fact that Cheney needs to improve his aim. I mean the VP shooting your political opponents can't be all that bad...

:p

[IHateGovernment]

Ornot I could go on that angle if you wish.

As for Jersey vs Conn. CT can't even keep a big four pro sports team. Jersey has 4.

[IHateGovernment]

What did you ask Rob? what was your comment Tiana?

[robdastud]

Ornot I could go on that angle if you wish.

As for Jersey vs Conn. CT can't even keep a big four pro sports team. Jersey has 4.
and I Love the devils... my ex bought me tickets for my birthday.

[klaatu]

I do wonder, though, if it might be possible to get something worthwhile going on the definition of marriage. Is the primary purpose of marriage the begetting of children or is that just a side issue? Not quite sure how to phrase it effectively, but I can see a pretty good donnybrook in it.

Lets use wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

Definitions
Precise definitions vary historically and between and within cultures: modern understanding emphasizes the legitimacy of sexual relations in marriage, yet the universal and unique attribute of marriage is the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). Traditionally, societies encourage one to marry "out" far enough to strengthen the ties, but "close" enough so that the in-laws are "one of us" or "our kind". One exception to this rule is found in the marriage of royalty, who strengthen their aid through concentration of wealth rather than through affinal ties. Even in this case, the individual was often encouraged to marry "within" close family limits. (Further discussion and reference: Marvin Harris, late Professor of Anthropology, Columbia University)

Marriage remains important as the socially sanctioned bond in a sexual relationship. Marriage is usually understood as a male-female relationship designed to produce children and successfully socialize them. Historically, most societies have allowed some form of polygamy. The West is a major exception. Europe, the United States and Canada have defined themselves as monogamous cultures. This was in part a Germanic cultural tradition, a requirement of Christianity (after the sixth century AD),[citation needed] and a mandate of Roman Law. However, Roman Law supported prostitution, concubinage, sex outside of marriage, homosexual sex, and sexual access to slaves. The Christian West formally banned these practices.

Globally, most existing societies no longer allow polygamy as a form of marriage. For example, China shifted from allowing polygamy to supporting only monogamy in the Marriage Act of 1953 after the Communist revolution. Most African and Islamic societies continue to allow polygamy (around 2.0 billion people). Probably, less than 3% of all Muslim marriages are polygamous. It is increasingly expensive in an urban setting, but more useful in rural areas where children are a future source of agricultural labor. Most of the world's population now live in societies where polygamy is less common and marriages are overwhelmingly monogamous.

Since the later decades of the 20th century many traditional assumptions about the nature and purpose of marriage and family have been challenged, in particular by LGBT social movements, who disagree with the notion that marriage should be exclusively heterosexual. Some people also argue that marriage may be an unnecessary legal fiction. This follows from an overall shift in Western ideas and practices of family; since WWII, the West has seen a dramatic increase in divorce (6% to over 40% of first marriages), cohabitation without marriage, a growing unmarried population, children born outside of marriage (5% to over 33% of births), and an increase in adultery (8% to over 40%). A system of somewhat serial monogamy has de facto emerged.

In modern times, the term marriage is generally reserved for a union that is formally recognized by the state (although some people disagree). The phrase legally married can be used to emphasize this point. In the United States there are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. The majority of US states do not recognize common law marriage. Many localities do support various types of domestic partnerships.

Since the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), marriage or holy matrimony has been a sacrament when practiced by Christians. (Marriages between non-Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church as "good and natural marriages.") Having always regarded it, in practical terms as a relationship between a man and a woman, in the 12th century that the Church (the Catholic Church ), as well as other Orthodoxies, formally defined marriage as such. (In Catholicism the Sacrament of Matrimony (Marriage) is between three people: God, the man and the woman). The Protestant Reformation reformulated marriage as a life-long covenant. Marriage of some kind is found in most societies, and typically married people form a nuclear household, which is often subsequently extended biologically, through children. In the West the nuclear family emerged after 1100. Most non-Western societies have a broader definition of family that includes an extended family network. Alternatively, people may choose to be "childfree". Finally, they may be childless due to infertility, and possibly seek treatment or consider adoption. The term wedlock is a synonym for marriage, and is mainly used in the phrase "out of wedlock" to describe a child born of parents who were not married.

In some societies, there is a growing debate about the form(s) that marriage should take. Two of the most hotly-debated variants are discussed below: same-sex marriage - legal, by 2005, in some countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, and Canada (as well as the US state of Massachusetts) - and polygamy.

[klaatu]

So clearly .. marriage has morphed into different forms and meanings over the years. Why dont we just remove the word from the State and federal Books..and officially replace it with civil union so people of all walks of life can peacefully and legally partner up.
Let religion have marriage.

[OrnotBitwise]

So clearly .. marriage has morphed into different forms and meanings over the years. Why dont we just remove the word from the State and federal Books..and officially replace it with civil union so people of all walks of life can peacefully and legally partner up.
Let religion have marriage.
That would be rational but I submit that it is impractical, for two reasons.

For one, the heterosexual couples wanting civil marriages wouldn't stand for it. "Civil union" sounds contrived and just too, well, PC. I believe that ending civil marriage and replacing the phrase with civil union would be perceived, rightly or wrongly, as a slight to those who abjure religious ceremonial marriage. This is why many homosexual people now feel that it's unacceptable: they feel that they are being relegated to a second class status.

It's also impractical because many religious organizations do not want licensing restrictions lifted from marriage. If no marriage license is required than quite literally anyone could marry. Finding clergy willing to perform marriage rites for same sex couples is not at all difficult. I'm sure that with a little extra effort, you could find clergy willing to perform the rite for polygamous and polyandrous groups.

[LadyT]

What did you ask Rob? what was your comment Tiana?

I was just trash talking CT's unknown $hithole vs Jersey's well known $hitholes.;)