JohnnyD 0 #76 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #77 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #78 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #79 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? No reason not to let them join in a legal union. (that has the same legal rights) Why redefine what many call a holy union?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #80 November 13, 2008 > Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #81 November 13, 2008 Quote> Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #82 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? No reason not to let them join in a legal union. (that has the same legal rights) Why redefine what many call a holy union? Many people, not all. What about all the straight couples who are married but had a non-religious ceremony? Should they not be allowed to be called a 'married' couple? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #83 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuote> Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief. No, but you think that your religious beliefs should become law and affect everyone. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #84 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuote> Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief. I believe Congress should make laws that don't mix laws and religions. Kinda like the First Amendment says they're supposed to.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #85 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? No reason not to let them join in a legal union. (that has the same legal rights) Why redefine what many call a holy union? Many people, not all. What about all the straight couples who are married but had a non-religious ceremony? Should they not be allowed to be called a 'married' couple? Many do have legal unions via jp. If they do not want it to be said they are married that is their choice"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #86 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? No reason not to let them join in a legal union. (that has the same legal rights) Why redefine what many call a holy union? Many people, not all. What about all the straight couples who are married but had a non-religious ceremony? Should they not be allowed to be called a 'married' couple? Many do have legal unions via jp. If they do not want it to be said they are married that is their choice That's not what I asked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #87 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote> Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief. No, but you think that your religious beliefs should become law and affect everyone. Hmm,where have I said that?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #88 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one 20, 50, 100, 200 or 400 years ago would have used your definition. Yeah but... 100 years ago it would have been common practice to describe most newly married couples as "gay". Words change meaning, huh? Indeed, but the accepted way is by evolution of the language, not hijacking of the language. Marriage has been redefined in the past. Its time to redefine it again. The reason? To give every human being the right to get married to the person they love. Why else? What's the reason NOT to? No reason not to let them join in a legal union. (that has the same legal rights) Why redefine what many call a holy union? Many people, not all. What about all the straight couples who are married but had a non-religious ceremony? Should they not be allowed to be called a 'married' couple? Many do have legal unions via jp. If they do not want it to be said they are married that is their choice That's not what I asked. Yes, it is"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #89 November 13, 2008 Could you guys maybe keep the length of the reply, reply, reply down. Not a rule against it mind you, just fuckin' annoying.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #90 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote> Why redefine what many call a holy union? For the same reason you want to redefine it as a holy union, I suppose. So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief. No, but you think that your religious beliefs should become law and affect everyone. Hmm,where have I said that? You're arguing for NOT letting gays get married by law are you not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #91 November 13, 2008 No, it's not. I didn't ask what THEY want to call themselves. I asked if YOU think they should be allowed to be considered "married" if they are not religious and did not have a religious ceremony. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #92 November 13, 2008 No I think they should have the right to be joined legaly."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #93 November 13, 2008 How would you vote on a proposition to ban divorce? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #94 November 13, 2008 QuoteHow would you vote on a proposition to ban divorce? I would vote not to a ban disolving marriage or a civil union Did I avoid your trap?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #95 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteHow would you vote on a proposition to ban divorce? I would vote not to a ban disolving marriage or a civil union Did I avoid your trap? What trap? So you don't want gays getting married because it's a religious union (and not ok with your religion), yet you are ok with people getting divorced and breaking their religious vows and union. Interesting. How does that make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #96 November 13, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow would you vote on a proposition to ban divorce? I would vote not to a ban disolving marriage or a civil union Did I avoid your trap? What trap? So you don't want gays getting married because it's a religious union, yet you are ok with people getting divorced and breaking their religious vows and union. Interesting. Well that is a very "liberial" spin on my posts and position. (really its a lie but I dont want to get literal here seeing that you do not want to either) Would you care to go back and re-read what I have posted and then get back to us all again? I can wait......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #97 November 13, 2008 I've read what you've posted in this thread and still it makes no sense. You're not ok with one but ok with the other. It's silly. Oh well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #98 November 13, 2008 QuoteI've read what you've posted in this thread and still it makes no sense. You're not ok with one but ok with the other. It's silly. Oh well. Open minded comphrehension is all it takes. (I am not intending any insult or attack here) To me it seems you have no problem attacking (metaphoricly) those of religion and who believe marriage is a holy state. (and many religions view divorce differently so you post about that is loose) I am trying to understand why you think that gays being joined legaly in the eyes of the state is not good enough. Why do you think it needs to be marriage if all the same legal concerns would be met under a civil union? (to take it too far) Why do you hate those who are of faith? (meant as an extreem example only)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #99 November 13, 2008 >So you think that Congres should make law against a religious belief. Nope. Congress should let people decide who they want to marry, and not make laws for or against any religious beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Conundrum 1 #100 November 13, 2008 Where have I presented 'hate' in any of these posts? I'm simply trying to understand how gays getting "married" effects you at all and why you think you have the right to make it the law. edit: and by the way, are you seriously telling me to be open minded while taking another breath and saying gays shouldn't be allowed to get 'married'? Wow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
