i asked strop. please do not stick your nose where it does not belong. and i said in the late 90's to illistrate how this country has let all of its moral go so that we don't 'huwt anyones feewings'
its not equal, im not better they are not better, but it shouldn't be a marriage if its not a man and a woman. thats my opinion, your attempts to change it are futile. thats it.
I, as the king of an undisclosed planet, hereby grant wolf1991 the power over all definitions by the power granted in my by the Giant Spaghetti Monster and the state, making him the official master of definitions. He also gets a ride in the interplanetary tea pot, if he wishes.
And the definition used here is the RATIONAL APPLICABLE one.
not even going to comment, but besides that, until the gays made a big stink about being left out, and the lawyers got invloved, everyone(except the gays of course) were totally fine with marriage being between a man and a woman, and furthermore, if religion is out, then why is it so common to be married by a priest, in a church.
not even going to comment, but besides that, until the gays made a big stink about being left out, and the lawyers got invloved, everyone(except the gays of course) were totally fine with marriage being between a man and a woman, and furthermore, if religion is out, then why is it so common to be married by a priest, in a church.
Because if a minority does not speak up, it is ignored. Its like saying "Pff go segregation! The blacks were fine until they made a big stink about being left out and got there lawyers involved, and everyone(except blacks of course) were totally fine with segregation."
Because the Christians are currently the majority. You can also get married in a temple, Masque, courthouse, $cientology center, and pretty much at any religious or law facility. How common do you think church marriage was in Soviet Russia, China, or even the UK? They still got married, they just did it without the religion added.
were still talking about america right? or has this debate gone global. im not sure how communist look at gays, but im guessing not fondly. and besides that, there were a whole bunch of white people that were on the blacks side. besides, it is still my opinion until it is proven with hard evidence, that gays chose it. blacks don't. i laugh at the guy who found the gay gene only because he is the same guy who discovered the 'fat gene'.
also how do you explain the years before america, when mariage was between you and god, and there were no courthouses. but it was still religious and only between a man and a woman.
were still talking about america right? or has this debate gone global. im not sure how communist look at gays, but im guessing not fondly
All those nations I listed had a majority of atheists, thus they don't have theistic weddings.
and besides that, there were a whole bunch of white people that were on the blacks side.
There are plenty straight people on the homosexuals side. The point is your bigoted logic could apply there to.
it is still my opinion until it is proven with hard evidence
READ. MAGES. LINKS.
also how do you explain the years before america, when mariage was between you and god, and there were no courthouses. but it was still religious and only between a man and a woman.
Yeah, the question is witch god? The Abraham? The Native American's spirits? The Deist gods of the founding fathers?(See what I did there?)The Norse gods? The Greek Gods? Or even no god! Kind of hard to define a marriage by religion do to each religion having a different ideal of it...
The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities
Yeah...I don't think so.
also how do you explain the years before america, when mariage was between you and god, and there were no courthouses. but it was still religious and only between a man and a woman.
Like I have said before on this thread: marriage was defined and was a traditional and cultural practice LONG before God came into the picture. It was page 6 if you're wondering. I also like how you pick snippets of peoples' posts and leave the rest in the dark.
Justifying inequality to people's rights just because you think it's "gross"?
-facepalm...
a gay marriage does not make sense. a marriage as defined in miriam websters dictionary up until the late 90's is a commitment between a man and a woman.
You really have been ignoring my posts haven't you? Marriage in the Bible often included multiple wives and even incest.
In other words our concept of just one man and one woman is a rather recent one brought about through changing what marriage is. Even more recent is marriage as an equal partnership rather then basically owning the women, or will you be proposing women should be treated as being some how lesser then men as well?
