Clint Eastwood said...............

Yurt said:
irrelevant....maybe we should accept slavery...
Click to expand...

no, we should just change the definition and say that slavery means owning ferrets.....then the blacks would have nothing to complain about and all that civil rights stuff would be unnecessary.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
better withhold your accolades until he gets it right.....only a fool would pretend that marriage hasn't meant the union between a man and a woman for over a thousand years.....
Click to expand...
It's also meant a union between a man and many women.
Are we to now revert back?
 
Last edited:
Don__t_F_with_Clint_Eastwood_by_Volts48.jpg
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Is it just the misappropriation of the word marriage that you object to or the whole concept of same sex unions?
Click to expand...

neither, it's the use of law to force something on society.....same thing that happened in Roe v Wade.....you want to turn something the majority of people do not want into something normative by force of law.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
neither, it's the use of law to force something on society.....same thing that happened in Roe v Wade.....you want to turn something the majority of people do not want into something normative.......
Click to expand...

So you only advocate the rule of law for things that you agree with, not very democratic. Do you think many people would pay taxes without the rule of law?
 
Onceler said:
The "1,000 years" argument is still a mystery to me.

I'm betting that most people wouldn't want to run society as most societies were run 1,000 years ago. People generally like progress.
Click to expand...

and you believe changing the definition of marriage is "progress".......yet only 33% of people recently polled agreed......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top