David may be a true believer in his own evil, John K Jones.
No change in the definition at all. You are wrong. Marriage was always a legal and binding act. Get a divorce and the courts will make that lesson clear. You do not have to get married in a church and tehre sure as hell isn't any religion in the divorce. Marriage in the old days was about cementing alliances and merging wealthy families.
Exactly how does that exclude gays?
Guno צְבִי (12-06-2019)
[1] union between one man and one woman... ...
[2] union between one adult and another adult, regardless of sex... ...
Man & woman [1] ≠ man & man or woman & woman [2]... The definition has been changed.
No, I am quite right, per the proof of identity.
While it was always meant to be a binding act, it has not always been a legal act.
Correct, it is not necessary to get married in a church.
??? the fuck??? Marriage is about a male and a female becoming one body, as it has always been about. In fact, a child itself is the physical embodiment of this purpose.
Gays are unable to procreate in principle.
Guno צְבִי (12-06-2019)
Oh, your definition. Not the legal. Not the real one, just yours.
Nope, marriage was always about financial needs. Part of it is to make sure women and children are not left poor when the man moves on. That was, of course, more painful in the old days, but we made laws and regulations to make it fairer.
You may not know it, but married or unmarried you can have sex,. One body? What a silly abstraction that is.
However, gays feel like you do. They want to have a family unit and raise kids. You should welcome them since over half of theses unions you seek end up in divorce, There is nothing particularly holy or special about doing a ceremony.
So you see marriage as an institution for breeding people.
Bookmarks