But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

PostmodernProphet said:
does that justify forcing change upon it?.....
Click to expand...

No. The justification are the principles of liberty and equality before the law.

what you are advocating here is not marriage.....what does a fundamental right to marriage have to do with this argument?....
Click to expand...

I am advocating marriage, regardless of your all-powerful "definition."

again, it isn't my definition.....it's society's definition......
Click to expand...

Uh huh and it's the "definition" you advocate. The argument is not what marriage is, society currently defines it as a marriage between a man and woman, but what it should be. Society can and will change the all powerful definition just as it has altered the concepts of the other all powerful Wizard(s) you worship.

Change, it's what's for dinner... breakfast, lunch and snacks too. Get used to it.
 
RStringfield said:
Uh huh and it's the "definition" you advocate. The argument is not what marriage is, society currently defines it as a marriage between a man and woman, but what it should be. Society can and will change the all powerful definition just as it has altered the concepts of the other all powerful Wizard(s) you worship.
Click to expand...
dude....yes....it's the definition I "advocate"....just as yours is the definition you "advocate"....the difference is, the definition I "advocate" is the one shared by all of society which has developed over centuries through common usage, while the definition you "advocate" is a self serving change forced upon society against it's will......guess what.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....yes....it's the definition I "advocate"....just as yours is the definition you "advocate"....the difference is, the definition I "advocate" is the one shared by all of society which has developed over centuries through common usage, while the definition you "advocate" is a self serving change forced upon society against it's will......guess what.......
Click to expand...

No, it is not shared by all of society. Many disagree and the tide is undoubtedly against you. I do not advocate that anything be forced on society against it's will. It will happen when the time is right and I do believe the time is near.

The 14th amendment and bill of rights are a part of our society, as is the Supreme Court. So I would not object to the court extending the Constitution's protections to homosexuals. But if it has to be achieved in other ways, that's okay too.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude....yes....it's the definition I "advocate"....just as yours is the definition you "advocate"....the difference is, the definition I "advocate" is the one shared by all of society which has developed over centuries through common usage, while the definition you "advocate" is a self serving change forced upon society against it's will......guess what.......
Click to expand...

And one other thing... No, the difference is that you believe your definition is shared by all of society and that all development of that has ceased. You continue to defer to society's definition as if it is a monolithic whole impervious to change. It is not.

I am not here to argue what society thinks. That can be determined through polls. I am here to argue what it should think. The poll numbers of yesterday are good for yesterday only. They change like definitions.

Further, I do not care what majority supports the violation of the rights of the individual. Our Constitution, says their opinions are not necessarily relevant in such matters. Of course, our system has safeguards to insure that an overwhelming majority opinion cannot be easily ignored. I am okay with that. The tipping point is near if not upon us.
 
WinterBorn said:
What harm will gay marriage actually cause?
Click to expand...
forcing a new definition of marriage upon society upon the whim of some minority interest is sufficient harm all in itself.....

tomorrow I shall advocate that we redefine "yours" to mean "mine" as it applies to your bank accounts and real estate.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Like when the supporters of Interracial marriage had the intent to force a new definition of marriage on everyone??
Click to expand...

/shrugs...except that didn't happen....marriage meant the union between a man and a woman both before and after......by the way, I notice you didn't respond to the issue of control that YOU brought up....afraid to admit it?....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
forcing a new definition of marriage upon society upon the whim of some minority interest is sufficient harm all in itself.....

tomorrow I shall advocate that we redefine "yours" to mean "mine" as it applies to your bank accounts and real estate.....
Click to expand...

Like when pro-interacial marriage supporters were forcing a new definition of marriage upon society, upon the whim of some minority interest??
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs...except that didn't happen....marriage meant the union between a man and a woman both before and after......by the way, I notice you didn't respond to the issue of control that YOU brought up....afraid to admit it?....
Click to expand...

It sure didn't mean just any man or woman, unless they were the same color.
Speaking of control, why do the anti-mixed marriage supporters want to control the lives of homosexuals??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
It sure didn't mean just any man or woman, unless they were the same color.
Click to expand...

yes, it did....that's why those who were opposed to bi-racial marriage had to pass laws preventing it.....because without those laws they would have been able to get married.....

gays cannot be married because the union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage......if two gays go to a church and engage in a marriage ceremony, people can nod their heads and smile and say "that's nice".....but nobody else has to pay attention to it because it simply isn't a marriage....

that's why you need to recognize this issue has nothing to do with right or relationships.....it is all about acceptance.....forcing everyone to treat the union between two people of the same sex as the equivalent of the union between the man and a woman.....

if you want to commit your life to another man, go for it.....just leave the rest of us out of it....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
yes, it did....that's why those who were opposed to bi-racial marriage had to pass laws preventing it.....because without those laws they would have been able to get married.....

gays cannot be married because the union between two people of the same sex isn't marriage......if two gays go to a church and engage in a marriage ceremony, people can nod their heads and smile and say "that's nice".....but nobody else has to pay attention to it because it simply isn't a marriage....

that's why you need to recognize this issue has nothing to do with right or relationships.....it is all about acceptance.....forcing everyone to treat the union between two people of the same sex as the equivalent of the union between the man and a woman.....

if you want to commit your life to another man, go for it.....just leave the rest of us out of it....
Click to expand...

It's so sad that you don't mind violating the civil rights of others, as long as you're able to exercise yours.

tsk-tsk :good4u:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top