Challenging the standard...

I firmly believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Just not to a same sex partner. That changes the meaning of marriage.
 
Nope, still two consenting adults committing in a ceremony.

Maybe you mean like allowing women to vote changed the meaning of voting.
 
spike said:
Nope, still two consenting adults committing in a ceremony.

Maybe you mean like allowing women to vote changed the meaning of voting.
Click to expand...

Let's see....

NOPE.

Although, allowing non-property owners to vote sure has. So has changing the Constitution & allowing Senators to be voted on in a general election.
 
ooohhhhh clever. ya got me there, huh? unfortunately, Biff the tally keeper says it's not comparable. Next.
 
Sure it is. Discrimination based on gender.

The only reason it's not comparable is you personal bias, which doesn't count.

Maybe we could take things another direction and give them 3/5ths marriage. :laugh:
 
He's entitled to his opinion, I wasn't attacking his opinion at all... saying I didn't like it was my way of voicing my own opinion on the matter. :)
 
yeah sex and marriage is all about breeding!

get out there and make a litter for jebus!

some folks here just don't understand that preventing gays from marrying is not going to somehow redeem their boring, sexless marriages.
 
while other folks keep pretending to know what the opposition is about.
 
Yep he even wants the gubment involved in preventing people from divorcing. Like some nanny state.
 
this whole thread has become very, very gay.

but at least winky's back.

in the gay thread.

curious....

erik_estrada.jpg
 
2minkey said:
oh i understand. you want your value system enforced by law. just like them commies, but on the flip side.
Click to expand...

It seems as though the ones who want law are the ones attempting to require the "right" of homosexual marriage - through law.

Marriage is not a right.

Homosexuals are not denied the right to marry.

Marriage has been defined, by aged tradition, as a union of of one man & one woman. Those who find the redefinition of marriage to be a threat to the institution of marriage are only asking that nothing change.
 
what about civil unions for purposes of medical + legal permissions when one party becomes disabled?

that would seem to be key, and the thing i've heard the most concern about.

presumably you'd have no issue with that.
 
Gonz said:
Marriage has been defined, by aged tradition, as a union of of one man & one woman. Those who find the redefinition of marriage to be a threat to the institution of marriage are only asking that nothing change.
Click to expand...

Just like voting was defined by aged tradition to be a man casting a ballot (no blacks of course). There were a bunch of knuckleheads trying to keep that bigotry going too.
 
2minkey said:
what about civil unions for purposes of medical + legal permissions when one party becomes disabled?

that would seem to be key, and the thing i've heard the most concern about.

presumably you'd have no issue with that.
Click to expand...

No I wouldn't.
However, that's a ruse too. Three words.


Power of Attorney.
 
Gonz said:
It seems as though the ones who want law are the ones attempting to require the "right" of homosexual marriage - through law.
Click to expand...

Is there something in the Constitution that defines it? The people against it are the ones who want to enforce discrimination through new laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top