Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:10:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2790 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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:
|
|
|
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I knew that. What I don’t know is why. Why are you opposed to those in
particular?
| |
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?
|
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
stricken from government entirely and left to religious institutions that can
define it and limit it within their jurisdiction however they want. I’m not
offended by some church not performing gay marriage, or allowing gay pastors, or
whatever...it’s none of my business. But the law is.
| |
If all they really want is to be treated equally, then they
should be arguing against endorsement, not trying to change marriage.
|
I suspect they realize that it’s a harder row to hoe. Or maybe, like you, they
buy into the sacred institution of marriage, but just think it should apply to
them too. I dunno, I don’t currently have any close gay friends to ping about
it.
I don’t think so. They are merely attempting to achieve parity in the easiest
way.
This has yet to be shown. At every turn you (and others who share your general
stance with whom I’ve talked) refuse to point to this alleged harm.
| |
and is completely unnecessary.
|
But it’s approachable.
| |
That is, unless there are ulterior motives involved.
|
What are you suggesting? I can’t even fabricate a tasty conspiracy in my mind
which is what you’re seeming to point toward.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzIL24.D99@lugnet.com... (...) they (...) apply to (...) about (...) There is a lot of baggage associated with marriage that should be available to any couple. The problem with (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Practical and other utilitarian arguments aside, let's just say they go against my religious belief system. (...) Life is hard; it's no excuse. I'd say you may be correct and that that realization is irresponsible. (...) Unfortunately, that is (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You can't tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1 woman, for (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
