level.eleven
Shooter
- May 12, 2009
- 4,673
- 48
Wow, this thread derailed rather quickly.
Yeah, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss. My interest stemmed from the GOP memo. Oh well.
Wow, this thread derailed rather quickly.
Thomas Paine was correct... the time will not be better later.
I often wonder what our children and grandchildren will think of us when they look back and ask, "Why did they not do anything when the opportunity better?"
Yeah, I thought it would be a fun topic to discuss. My interest stemmed from the GOP memo. Oh well.
They should butt out of the marriage business. Gay or straight.
Nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition.
Marriage (by definition)
noun 1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
Hmmm...history says differently. There have been man and many women, same sex marriages in early christianity and other cultures, the kings of Ireland married a horse. There've been many definitions. Shoot, the Romney family were polygamists a couple of generations ago. Not sure where this one man, one woman stuff is coming from.Nothing. Marriage is between a man and a woman, by definition. If they want to define other things they can. Unions between man and man, woman and woman, donkey and elephant can have their own laws and specifications.
I don't know. Came off of Dictionary.com unaltered. Also, take 'B' out and it still is fitting to be interpreted differently than man and woman.I question b:. When was it added to what dictionary? Meriam Webster disagrees with those definitions
Thank you and a BIGWhile i will always believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
I also believe that a social contract between two consenting adults is also in order. So those who choose to live an alternate lifestyle and in relationship with each other should be protected and they should not be be infringed upon. That social contract shall have the same privileges as a married couple (man+woman)
While i will never agree what two gay people do. I believe it is their right.
While i will always believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
I also believe that a social contract between two consenting adults is also in order. So those who choose to live an alternate lifestyle and in relationship with each other should be protected and they should not be be infringed upon. That social contract shall have the same privileges as a married couple (man+woman)
While i will never agree what two gay people do. I believe it is their right.
Hmmm...history says differently. There have been man and many women, same sex marriages in early christianity and other cultures, the kings of Ireland married a horse. There've been many definitions. Shoot, the Romney family were polygamists a couple of generations ago. Not sure where this one man, one woman stuff is coming from.
They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.Don't forget about the pedphilia and incest that existed in history too.
Like I mentioned upthread, why should a gay couple or a married couple be afforded any more rights or privileges then me and my brother if we decide to live together?
Until my brother and myself can get the same rights as a married couple to hell with the gay marriage crowd
As far as the government is concerned, that's all that marriage is, a social contract.I didnt say marriage. I said social contract. I believe that you should be allowed a social contract between you and your brother.
Maybe the government needs to stop giving benifits to married individals all together.
Why should i pay more if i never decided to get married(stress) or have children. While both can and are a blessing so i am told. I am not certain it is so. I just see it as a potential loose the the car house and pay out the ying yang for child support /discipline spousal support etc..
But if you allow gay marriage you are going to have those nut jobz who want to marry their dog have relations with it (beastialty), or those that wish to marry objects such as their car, gun etc. Thus the need for a social contract.
They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.
They aren't related to the subject at hand. No matter how much you wish to equate them.
The Republicans need to take a position, but they will likely not, largely because they are mixed on this. The "nib out" is the only good long term option IMO. Start with removing the marriage penalty etc. from the tax code. That in itself would take some of the wind out of the gay marriage proponents sails.Exactly, "nib out" isn't an option. A position has to be taken.
Some interesting commentary from Fox New's Shep Smith the other day. Are Republicans on the wrong side of history?
Shep Smith, call your office - POLITICO.com