Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 11:34:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women.
|
A definition. NOT The definition. This point seems lost on you.
|
What is your point? Don’t be such a coward. Define it!
|
I’m not sure why you’re missing my point.
I’m OK with any sort of union between any number of people (or, if in future
other species are uplifted or discovered such that they can give informed
consent) or other species as long as everyone involved has given informed
consent.
I’m opposed to government expressing a preference for a particular sort of union
by giving it preferential treatment, or a particular label that confers
blessing. Government ought not to be in the business of expressing preferences
for one sort of action over another as long as neither harms rights.
Either call all of these unions “Marriage”, license them all without expressing
preference, or get government out of the marriage licensing business altogether.
| |
| |
Which is
why you lose the debate. By definition.
|
You mean by changing definition.
|
I’m not sure it’s changed. I think you’re just using a narrow definition. The
Koran says a man may marry up to 4 wives, so it’s not a new thing that the
definition isn’t what you think it is.
You say this is a culture war. Bad answer. But... Well, if it’s war you want,
then war it is you’ll get and you’re going down. Big time. Intolerance cannot be
tolerated.
I need to put a rainbow sticker on my car, I guess.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
