Pope excommunicates the Mafia

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyhoo, I found a reliable source of a boomer claiming that they invented sex. Go boomers!

[Sava]

God, you're such an idiot.

The sad part is... it's not a troll.

[rah]

And I know of One Catholic priest that was a pedophile so by Ben's logic, all Catholic priests are pedophiles including the POPE. What a douche.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you saying that Jane Fonda is off her rocker when she claims 'Boomers invented sex?'

[Sava]

You've managed to get me to 10am without boredom.

If I had a thanks right now, I'd give it

[Ben Kenobi]

Did Ben take the weekend off? I figured this thread would be 200+ posts by now.

I've pushed it over 200 posts now. I believe that will be 'achievement unlocked'.

[rah]

Are you saying that Jane Fonda is off her rocker when she claims 'Boomers invented sex?'

Considering that she's a liberal and I'm not as much, I think she was off her rocker on a lot of things. I've never heard of her claim on who invented sex so I'll just assume that she was in that instance also But again you're just deflecting.

[Sava]

I've pushed it over 200 posts now. I believe that will be 'achievement unlocked'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering that she's a liberal and I'm not as much, I think she was off her rocker on a lot of things. I've never heard of her claim on who invented sex so I'll just assume that she was in that instance also But again you're just deflecting.

So we've established that:

Liberal boomers believe they invented sex.
Jane Fonda speaks for liberal boomers.
Rah thinks Jane Fonda is still hot but he isn't a liberal.

Ok, cool.

[Sava]

I never thought Jane Fonda was that hot. And she's had the same horrible female mullet since the 80's

of that period:

Sharon Tate

and she died young so she's hot in all her pics

[C0ckney]

Again - it means you are not an atheist if you argue that men can become God.

no it means you are too stupid to understand what i wrote.

If Oxford were to redefine "man" to include "woman", would that mean that men and women are exactly the same?

You're arguing that marriage is a social construct and can simply mean whatever we want it to and I am arguing that marriage has an ontological existence that extends beyond a particular culture.

It's not a social construct. That is why you find it in 1st century Rome and why you see it today.

No, it's not, and this is the fundamental dispute. I'm arguing marriage has an ontological existence which explains why it is found in every culture.

so what you're saying is that marriage exists in every culture, yet all these cultures are different and exist in various contexts and so there must be therefore, both as a matter of fact, and as an logical and inevitable consequence of these variations, some differences between marriages in these diverse cultures. you want to say that it is only between one man and one woman, yet this ignores not only the legal and social reality in many western countries, but also for example, polygamous marriages in the middle east, south asia and africa.

Again, the bible is well aware of homosexuality and rejects it. The arguments against homosexuality in general haven't changed today. It's not like it just magically changed it's nature.

as i said before, it doesn't matter what arguments christians, or others use against homosexuality. what matters is that fewer and fewer people accept those arguments, or even take them seriously; that their effect on society is diminishing.

This doesn't change the fact that society relies upon marriage between one man and one woman for it's effective propagation. Societies that abandon this get crushed.

You're removing one of the blocks that makes western society what it is. There are consequences for this. Society isn't malleable play-dough that can be moulded into whatever you like. There are consequences.

this is simply bizarre. you seem to be claiming that allowing people to marry those of the same sex someone means that people of the sex will no longer do so and further implying that marriage is vital for society to continue. there are many problems with this, but i'll just pick one. marriage, as an institution is declining, fewer people are choosing to marry. this has been going on for a long time and yet society hasn't collapsed.

and yes there are consequences to allowing same sex marriage. it means that homosexuals can marry their partners and enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population. it also makes many bigots, usually religious types, very unhappy and reduces them to making ridiculous arguments about marriage.

The point being is that there's an ontological difference between the union of a man and a woman and between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

pure deflection and not a point that's even worth considering.

[rah]

So we've established that:

Liberal boomers believe they invented sex.
Jane Fonda speaks for liberal boomers.
Rah thinks Jane Fonda is still hot but he isn't a liberal.

Ok, cool.

Deflecting again I see. Always happens when you're losing arguments but I'll play because I'm bored.
What we really established.
1. One liberal boomer believed that boomers invented sex
2. Jane Fonda spoke for Jane Fonda
3. Jane is too old to still be hot but I remember her in Barbarella which she was quite hot in.

Ok Cool. Douche.

[Ben Kenobi]

I never thought Jane Fonda was that hot. And she's had the same horrible female mullet since the 80's

You have taste, you're obviously not a boomer.

[kentonio]

Guys, he's done the same thing he always does and fooled us into engaging with him before dragging the conversation into a steaming pile of strawmen, lies and ridiculous nonsense.

We should all be ****ing ashamed of ourselves for falling for this yet again.

[Ben Kenobi]

no it means you are too stupid to understand what i wrote.

Uh, Atheists agree with me here. This isn't hard. Atheists believe there is no God, not that you can become God if you try hard enough.

yet all these cultures are different

And that they all have marriage is an argument for the ontological existence of Marriage. It's also an argument that even if you were to redefine marriage, that the same need for the institution exists, so that there will simply be marriage again, and that what is marriage will continue to be referred to as marriage.

some differences between marriages in these diverse cultures

Sure, but the core parts are all the same. Each culture would recognize a marriage ceremony for what it was.

legal and social reality in many western countries

Once, again, begging the question. I have underwear older than gay marriage.

what matters is that fewer and fewer people accept those arguments, or even take them seriously; that their effect on society is diminishing.

According to whom? You? Again, marriage has an ontological reality. It doesn't matter what you call 'marriage'. Marriage still exists. You could redefine things so that gravity did not exist, it still wouldn't change the fact that it does.

this is simply bizarre.

Fine. Show me a society that didn't rely upon marriage between a man and a woman for it's propagation.

you seem to be claiming that allowing people to marry those of the same sex someone means that people of the sex will no longer do so

That's what we are seeing, marriage rates are in freefall, just as I predicted.

marriage, as an institution is declining, fewer people are choosing to marry. this has been going on for a long time and yet society hasn't collapsed.

Not yet. We're getting there though.

it means that homosexuals can marry their partners and enjoy the same rights as the rest of the population. it also makes many bigots, usually religious types, very unhappy and reduces them to making ridiculous arguments about marriage.

What about the children who are deprived a mother and father? That's going to have a huge impact on them for the rest of their lives.

pure deflection and not a point that's even worth considering.

"That point was absolutely devastating to my argument"