Tweet
Did the states control the last one?
Actually... yes.
-
Actually... yes.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV) -
Ramo -It's not about being second class, it's about words and their definitions. "Marriage" has a meaning and it doesn't include 2 people of the same gender.Why should the state mandate that gay relationships be considered second class and not equivalent to straight relationships?
Yeah, like damn near the entire US and the world.And marriage only means that in reactionary places like the US.
Comment
-
I wonder if Ramo likes being confused with MrFun.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Oops, did I do that?Comment
-
I guess not
Comment
-
I wonder if Ramo likes being confused with MrFun.
Does anyone?
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Marriage does not describe the union of one man to one woman- you can have multiple parties to a marriage, which is why you ave polygamy and polyandry. And through most of hisotry, marriage was a contract between families and groups, not just individuals, so all this sanctity of marriage stuff is, well bull.
The fact is, if people talk about "defending marriage", ask yourself: which side here is arguing for less marriages? Not the sdie that supports gay marriages, that is for sure.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard ShawComment
-
Sorry Ramo. Looks like I'm the one that thought you were MrFun.I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator RubioComment
-
Sorry Ramo. Looks like I'm the one that thought you were MrFun.
So I guess you are the one he must kill.
Marriage does not describe the union of one man to one woman- you can have multiple parties to a marriage, which is why you ave polygamy and polyandry
Very good point! I'm sure that many considered Mormon polygamous marriages to be marriages, they just did not approve of the way they were doing so.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Oh, I agree, but inheritance and custody issues should already be set up in private contracts.There should be no benefits afforded people who are married, at least not wrt the tax code or "subsidies". Government should only involve itself in lines of inheritance, custody, etc...and that goes for all people regardless of sexual orientation...
And the government DOES have an obligation not to discriminate - if they recognize YOUR contract between two consenting adults, they better recognize MINE, too.Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
Recognising a contract is not the same as calling that contract a "marriage". I just get a bit tired of how the language keeps getting re-defined by people with agendas. Now Bill O'Reilly is trying to bypass the church and state issue by calling Jesus a "philosopher" and the Christian religion, "philosophy". This is the guy who advertises his show as "the no-spin zone"!Comment
-
Granted. And I think our difference of opinion is slight enough to be irrelevant, given that we don't think married couples should enjoy any benefits from the government anyway. Surely you also agree that the government shouldn't be able to stop two individuals from defining their status in a contract with whatever word they want, right?Recognising a contract is not the same as calling that contract a "marriage".Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/DaveDaDouche
Read my seldom updated blog where I talk to myself: http://davedadouche.blogspot.com/Comment
-
I see nothing wrong about two man or two woman getting married at all. First homosexual is cause by gentic make-up and thoughtout history more or less stay at about 1 % of the total populateion. So you mean 99 % of the population is so afraid of 1 %. I than a Muslum and yet I disagree with the Muslum Concil on this . The Canada Government future law on marriage which will allow same sex marriage has than caure which state that any religious group doesnot have to marry same sex couple, but the civil authority must.By the year 2100 AD over half of the world population will be follower of Islam.Comment
-
Now Bill O'Reilly is trying to bypass the church and state issue by calling Jesus a "philosopher" and the Christian religion, "philosophy".
Technically he ain't wrong. All religion is philosophy.“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)Comment
-
Does anyone?
Then I suppose Christians don't have religious freedom ala the 1st Amendment.Technically he ain't wrong. All religion is philosophy
Gepap -Never said it did.Marriage does not describe the union of one man to one woman
I believe polygamy should be legal too since it does qualify under the definition.you can have multiple parties to a marriage, which is why you ave polygamy and polyandry. And through most of hisotry, marriage was a contract between families and groups, not just individuals, so all this sanctity of marriage stuff is, well bull.
I don't care about how many marriages there are, I just prefer using the proper terms. For example, I don't call homosexuals "gay" out of respect for the people who are named "Gay"...not that there's anything wrong with that.The fact is, if people talk about "defending marriage", ask yourself: which side here is arguing for less marriages? Not the sdie that supports gay marriages, that is for sure.
David -Yup, I'm quibbling.Granted. And I think our difference of opinion is slight enough to be irrelevant, given that we don't think married couples should enjoy any benefits from the government anyway. Surely you also agree that the government shouldn't be able to stop two individuals from defining their status in a contract with whatever word they want, right?
Comment
Comment