Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:25:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2689 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
Merriam-Webster: marriage: (2) the state of being united to a person of the
same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Foul ball (counts as Strike one). You are using the term “marriage” to mean
“traditional marriage”, which has the definition you are looking for.
|
Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is!
|
Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I
assumed you meant in the dictionary.
| |
| |
Encarta: marriage: 1. legal relationship between spouses: a legally
recognized relationship, established by a civil or religious ceremony,
between two people who intend to live together as sexual and domestic
partners
Strike two. But then, Encarta is part of the Evil Empire (no definitions
under marriage for Encarta mention either man or woman).
|
Okay, can’t you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing!
|
What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in
the United States. I thought you wanted us to appeal to such authorities.
| |
Why do you draw the limit at 2???
How do you feel about brothers wedding each other?
How about a father, his adult daughter and adult son?
How about mom, Oedipus and Fido?
How can one argue against such unions while being in favor of same-sex
marriages?
|
Good point! As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The
real, and obvious, answer is that marriage is a social institution that should
have no role in government whatsoever. Any benefits that married people receive
over the non-married are abomination. Once marriage is removed entirely from
law, people can be free to associate through contract in whatever arrangement
they want. Or to not do so and just live. Whatever. As long as no one is
being harmed (as they are now through their relegation to second-class
citizenship) then I don’t care.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is! (...) Okay, can't you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing! (Evil indeed;-) (...) You green-eyed bigot! :-) Why do you draw the limit at 2??? How do you feel (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
