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

PostmodernProphet said:
no, it wasn't.....it was defined the same way then as it is now......that's why they needed a law to prohibit the issuing of marriage licenses to mixed race couples.....that isn't the case now.....there isn't a law prohibiting the issuance of a license to same sex couples.....that's why they are seeking a law changing the definition of marriage, without it they don't have what has always been required for a marriage license.......
Click to expand...

LOL. Yes, it was. Specifically they added constitutional amendments specifically defining it (they even used the word "define" in many of the cases). One example was posted before as well, but you "conveniently" ignore facts that get in the way of your attempt to force others to follow your religion by attempting to set it into a "definition" that you believe shall never, no never, "change", even though you know it has changed a bunch through your own religious studies and that it is defined differently even within different societies currently.

You really are funny. Your "sanctity of definition" gland is enlarged to the point of cancerous growth. Oddly enough only people who have religious objections seem to have this gland.
 
Damocles said:
Specifically they added constitutional amendments specifically defining it (they even used the word "define" in many of the cases).
Click to expand...

really?....you plan to prove that the definition of marriage included gays for a thousand years by providing evidence of some state that has already changed it?.....nice job....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
really?....you plan to prove that the definition of marriage included gays for a thousand years by providing evidence of some state that has already changed it?.....nice job....
Click to expand...

Why does a "thousand years" keep coming up? Do you think anyone in their right mind wants the standards set during the 11th century to govern over our current actions, laws & customs?

Do you need a rundown of what 11th century living was like for most people on that one?
 
Damocles said:
even though you know it has changed a bunch through your own religious studies and that it is defined differently even within different societies currently.
Click to expand...

can you give me an example of a society which currently defines marriage as something other than the union between a man and a woman?.....your attempt to paint the US as such an example is ridiculous to the extreme....
 
Onceler said:
Why does a "thousand years" keep coming up? Do you think anyone in their right mind wants the standards set during the 11th century to govern over our current actions, laws & customs?
Click to expand...

no reason other than it was my original statement and some here are pretending my original statement isn't true.....if you want to use 200 years instead, that's fine....if I had done so I'm sure someone would have accused me of moving the goalposts....
 
Damocles said:
This argument is old and misapplied.

Marriage has three aspects.

1. The Religious - The government has nothing to do with this. Gay people can, and do, go to churches and get Married without the government's approval or "blessing", nobody is getting arrested for this.
2. The "Moral". You make a promise, you either keep it or not. Gay people can and do make these promises and keep them daily.
3. The "Legal". The government "endorses" through recognition certain specific relationships based on what? They can't base it on religion.

IMO, the government shouldn't be interfering, either through "recognizing" or through direct negative action (arresting and charging), in anything that does not have a victim. There is no direct victim of "gay marriage" so long as they are adults.

Seeing as it is factual that gays get married daily, it is stupid to reject simple recognition based on weak arguments. Let people do what they will, it really isn't any of our business so long as they are both consenting and both adults.
Click to expand...

I dont believe the government is "endorsing" a marriage by acknoledging that it exists or even by liscencing it, they are simply reconizing it.

Is the government endorsing a topless bar by allowing or liscencing it?
 
Jarod said:
Pretending that love relationships between same sex couples is make believe and failing to reconize them is harmfull.
Click to expand...

I'm not pretending they don't have a love relationship.....I'm simply pointing out that it isn't marriage, despite what they call it......
 
Jarod said:
I dont believe the government is "endorsing" a marriage by acknoledging that it exists or even by liscencing it, they are simply reconizing it.

Is the government endorsing a topless bar by allowing or liscencing it?
Click to expand...

Please go over my post and seek the word "endorse" in it. When you don't find it, can you address this to somebody making that argument? If it really was meant for me, it is a straw man.
 
sooner or later the younger generations that see no problem with homosexual relationships will out number those that have a problem with them and that will be that

it is happening even as we debate the issue

in other words, you lose - deal with it

my wife and i are part of the older generation that accepts homosexual relationships/marriage and we are not alone - we are both 67
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I frankly cannot see why people like you get so worked up about this subject, it is going to happen whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

you realize of course you just answered your own question.....recent polls say over 60% of Americans don't want it to happen......and it's going to happen whether we like it or not.....

that's how liberals deal with society......it doesn't matter to you if you're right or if you're wrong, you just keep fucking us up......
 
Don Quixote said:
sooner or later the younger generations that see no problem with homosexual relationships will out number those that have a problem with them and that will be that

it is happening even as we debate the issue

in other words, you lose - deal with it

my wife and i are part of the older generation that accepts homosexual relationships/marriage and we are not alone - we are both 67
Click to expand...

My wife and I are both in our 60's also and we don't have a problem with Gay's having the same rights as we do, in regards to them marrying and creating a loving household.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you realize of course you just answered your own question.....recent polls say over 60% of Americans don't want it to happen......and it's going to happen whether we like it or not.....

that's how liberals deal with society......it doesn't matter to you if you're right or if you're wrong, you just keep fucking us up......
Click to expand...

And again - how many Americans were against interracial marriage 50 years ago?

You're right - we don't tolerate bigots getting in the way of other's freedom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top