Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:39:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2623 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
| |
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.
|
I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one.
The cheek:-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
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!
| |
| |
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.
|
Then I guess we disagree.
| |
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.
|
If it is your point that government shouldn’t respect marriage, why can’t you
respect the notion that marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 women? Why can’t
gays? If all they really want is to be treated equally, then they should be
arguing against endorsement, not trying to change marriage. This tack is
stupid, causing great harm, and is completely unnecessary. That is, unless
there are ulterior motives involved.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I assumed you meant in the dictionary. (...) What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in the United States. I thought you wanted us to (...) (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
|
|
|
|
