 | | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
|
(...) The institution of marriage is devalued, and here is how. If you allow same-sex marriages (remember, this isn't a ban on homosexual marriages), then you open pandora's box WRT to marriage. What about three people who want to get married? How (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
|
(...) Someone has to lead... and if it's not the gov't *and* the courts, than who? Further, *any* law that excludes a person due to his or her sex is sexual discrimination--we're not talking changing the number of people in a marriage--marriage is (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
|
(...) Aren't the courts supposed to be a part of the gov't? There is a process. (...) Ah, so you are a unisex restroom proponent then. (...) Bigot! I and my 4 female lovers and 1 male lover are being discriminated against! Who says it's only between (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
|
(...) Secularly speaking, I don't know that there's a problem with devaluing marriage. If there is one, I'd like to hear it articulated without appealing to provincial wisdom or religious values. As a matter of secular law, marriage is a contract, (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Git outta my bedroom!!
|
|
(...) ...Mightily resisting the urge to call John names!... My most civil response to all of the above is: So what?! Let's leave the dog scenario to the side as it is "species out of bounds." The point of marriage generally is to legally bind people (...) (21 years ago, 12-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
