Slartibartfast Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Some FB acquaintances I know are gonna be pretty embarrassed if that is true, because some people I know are using it as I described. :huh: The pink and red is supposed to be in support. Some of the remixes are pretty funny. http://humanrightsca...rc-logo-remixes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest inoubliable Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The pink and red is supposed to be in support. Some of the remixes are pretty funny. http://humanrightsca...rc-logo-remixes That Paula Deen one was creepy! LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PachiSusan Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 The pink and red is supposed to be in support. Some of the remixes are pretty funny. http://humanrightsca...rc-logo-remixes I'm not arguing on either side or the efficacy of either. I'm just saying that's where it came from and it's an offshoot of the original. My favorite is actually the one with bacon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Some FB acquaintances I know are gonna be pretty embarrassed if that is true, because some people I know are using it as I described. :huh: This is what it came from and explains it: So the cross shape is explicitly sexual? Methinks they needs better copy on that one. ETA: I don't see how that rules out gay marriage though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 My favorite is actually the one with bacon. You can never go wrong with bacon. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It is not the Catholic church or ANY church that gets to define it, which is why this is so frustrating, It is a billions of years old concept that was there before Christianity, it helped in the evolutionary process, otherwise you wouldn't be here. We who want to keep that law in place see the inherant value of it, though all these billions of years, and think perhaps, these last 50 years might be a drop in the bucket of our history, so let's not fool it. You are fighting against the natural law and rights of man that have been in place forever and ever amen. It was prejudice against blacks (notice most of the resistance came from the south where slavery was a part of the culture) that perpetuated laws against interracial marriage, and it is no way a civil rights argument. Marriage is an ancient concept, but it has morphed over time. Slavery was probably just as old of a concept, but we've altered that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I see. None of my friends are using that so I hadn't seen it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karen in CO Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I have seen a lot of changes to the sign today from bacon equal signs, batman equal signs, Dalek equal signs, and Bert and Ernie equal signs. I would take it to be saying someone is Christian and in support. Dalek equal signs? Do they mean "EXTERMINATE!" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 And now we have come back a full circle to the beginning of this thread which started with the argument that the word "marriage" has some special sanction and is reserved for only some kinds of unions. Not true. Marriages have long existed in various forms. The definition of marriage has constantly evolved such that modern marriages do not in any way resemble ancient marriages. Now when the public discussion has turned towards including homosexual partnerships under marriage, we suddenly do not want any further redefinition of the word "Marriage". When in past history of humans has the definition of marriage ever been about same sex marriage. It has always always been about a man being legally able to have sex with a woman, many women or with a very young woman, etc. In some very patriarchal societies marriage has always been to the advantage of the men over the women. It has only been within the last 100 years or so that it has been legal to have sex with someone not one's spouse. Never before has marriage in all its many definitions ever meant that same sex couple can be married. Changing this definition is HUGE. Absolutely huge in the scheme of human endeavors. It has only been what? 40 years or so since gay people can openly live as gay people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom in High Heels Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I read the whole thing! Booyah. I ♥ some of you ladies so hard it's not funny. If James Bond wasn't so hot in bed, I'd gay love you. And I'd want to have a polygamous, same sex civil union/marriage/bonding/alliance/consortium/merger/connubiality/alliance/consortium with you all. :drool: Hey, here's a thought: if same sex marriage is legal, and then polygamy is legal, could there be a marriage of just all men or just all women? That is a TV reality show I would watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Dalek equal signs? Do they mean "EXTERMINATE!" ? Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmoira Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I read the whole thing! Booyah. I ♥ some of you ladies so hard it's not funny. If James Bond wasn't so hot in bed, I'd gay love you. And I'd want to have a polygamous, same sex civil union/marriage/bonding/alliance/consortium/merger/connubiality/alliance/consortium with you all. :drool: Hey, here's a thought: if same sex marriage is legal, and then polygamy is legal, could there be a marriage of just all men or just all women? That is a TV reality show I would watch. Only as long as Snookie isn't part of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I have seen a lot of changes to the sign today from bacon equal signs, batman equal signs, Dalek equal signs, and Bert and Ernie equal signs. I would take it to be saying someone is Christian and in support. Me too. The one that made me sick was the pink machine guns on a red background. Yuck. Disagreeing is one thing but threatening/glorifying violence is disgusting. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FaithManor Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 :D :D :D :D Get tough, Mama. There's livestock to be had. Future MIL with pitchfork! Oh, man I hope I have the law on my side. :biggrinjester: Now seriously, on the topic of the more serious discussion, I have to say that despite being a Jesus Follower, and despite, being fairly morally conservative, and in conjunction with my rather libertarian nature which makes me a paradox, rolled up in a cunundrum, I am no fan of religious law being the rule of the land so long as secular law does not infringe on the free exercise of religion. I think this makes me the lone, ultra-moderate I know! My reason for this has actually very little to do with any of the reasons cited in this thread. I have seen spiritual abuse. It is not pretty. I don't wish it on anyone. I'd rather let the secular government define marriage however it wants to if that is what it wants to do, then give religion the political clout to do so. Having spent a few of my teen years under the mind games of oppressive, religious leadership, I'd rather deal with the corruption of the feds. Though, I have to admit I'd like to see a lot of these types of issues turned back to the states because the citizenry has a better chance of being heard on the local level than on the federal...remember, as I said in a previous post, these are the weasels that spent $175,000+ dollars trying to determine the effects of cocaine on the s**uality of Japanese Quail...not certain we ought to be letting them have a say in anything that goes on between two consenting adults! :D This basically makes me kind of unpopular with everyone. I will also have to admit that the concept of DD's fiance having to purchase sheep and goats for us, is kind of crazily appealing. ;) Faith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laundrycrisis Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I am NOT reading this whole thread. I'm just here to say, I'm wearing my only red shirt for the 2nd day in a row, and my rainbow-flag art glass earrings. I see it as a personal liberty kind of thing. If two unrelated adults want to have a romantic relationship and make it permanent enough that they want to be legally recognized as each other's next of kin, with all of the legal rights that brings, over and above the rights of their partner's family of origin, IMO that should be their choice. I don't think it's okay for anyone's personal religious views of marriage or ideas about tradition to stand in the way of two adults being allowed to legally establish themselves as life partners to each other. I think same-sex couples should have a way for their marriages to mean something legally. They already mean something personally, and they don't need anyone's permission or approval to be in their marriages. IMO their marriages should mean as much legally as mine does. Everyone is free to maintain their own views on what marriage should be - we all do that already. We all want to live according to our own views and values. Most of us have the freedom to do that, and that wouldn't change. Legalizing gay marriage would mean that more people would be able to be legally married according to their own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm listening to some audio from the SCOTUS DOMA debate right now on NPR All Things Considered. It's very interesting. Anyone know how to listen to all of it? Try the Oyez Project. And for good commentary in almost-real-time, Scotusblog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanitaL Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It has only been within the last 100 years or so that it has been legal to have sex with someone not one's spouse. Never before has marriage in all its many definitions ever meant that same sex couple can be married. Changing this definition is HUGE. Absolutely huge in the scheme of human endeavors. It has only been what? 40 years or so since gay people can openly live as gay people. According to Suetonius, Nero married a young man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I read the entire thread! Do I win my choice of David Tennant clad in kilt or tutu? I choose kilt. :D I'm a straight, hetero, happily married woman. As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals have done more to besmirch the "sacred" institution of marriage than gays ever could. All you have to do is read the news out of Hollywood or Washington to see that. The word "marriage" isn't sacred, and it doesn't belong to any one group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I still want the exception for time lords. Oh, yes. Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Michelle* Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 According to Suetonius, Nero married a young man. Do you really want to hold up Nero as the person to emulate here? :huh: http://penelope.uchi...sars/Nero*.html Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still p133current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. 84 This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images,fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 According to Suetonius, Nero married a young man. Okay. Thanks. But did that change the definition of marriage? A grown man having sex (married or not) screams pedophile not loving relationship between equals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I would be happy to oblige. May I raise you a John Barrowman or Ewan McGregor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdventureMoms Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I don't really do men or kilts, but because I love you all this much: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suzybluecheese Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Try the Oyez Project. And for good commentary in almost-real-time, Scotusblog. I was listening to Tom Goldstein, from the Scotusblog, on NPR. It's a good listen. It seems that if DOMA is decided as a federlism case, then Prop. 8 could be a harder case to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Well, technically River is human, just conceived in the Time Vortex, but technically she married a robot version of the Doctor anyway. Timey wimey. Yeah, but her parents were both human. Not one human and one time lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I was listening to Tom Goldstein, from the Scotusblog, on NPR. It's a good listen. It seems that if DOMA is decided as a federlism case, then Prop. 8 could be a harder case to fight. Yes, I thought he was right in seeing that as explanatory for why the Court would grant cert. on a second SSM case when they haven't even decided the first. ETA: Wow, that sounded all full of myself, didn't it? "I think one of the country's most renowned experts in Supreme Court litigation was right." Goldstein can sleep well tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ipsey Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm glad this thread is still going. I think the moderators must be having indigestion though. :) This board has certainly caused me to rethink many things over the years. When I first joined the board, about 11 years ago, I was an uber-Christian. A lot of things I read on this board contributed to my deconversion. I know some people become religious on this board and some people change political affiliation or just wind up with different perspectives on things. I'm glad for it! Ok, back to equal rights talk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanitaL Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Do you really want to hold up Nero as the person to emulate here? :huh: http://penelope.uchi...sars/Nero*.html No. My response was to the comment that this is something in the past 40 years. It's not. Since we're reading through ancient history this year - I remembered Nero. Who is definitely not from the last 40 years. And since he made the law, I would guess it was legal. Not holding anybody up for emulation. Just countering an erroneous statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantlion Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Don't homosexuals have those types of relationships already? Are you implying that someone who is homosexual and in a relationship can't get a hug without first getting a marriage certificate? How does having, or not having, a marriage certificate affect any of the above? If you are married and enjoy being married, there is a level of intimacy (outside of the bedroom) that cannot be replaced with platonic friendships. I'm a hugger, I'll hug everyone, even people I disagree with. That doesn't equate to the level of intimacy I've had with dh over the years. If gays didn't want to honor marriage, they'd just live together and tell everyone to bugger off. By creating a union, a marriage, however you want to define it, they are making a commitment to each other and proclamation to the friends and family present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Captain Jack?!? Gasp. He loves everything that has a heartbeat(s). Your avatar cracked me up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in NY Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If you are married and enjoy being married, there is a level of intimacy (outside of the bedroom) that cannot be replaced with platonic friendships. I'm a hugger, I'll hug everyone, even people I disagree with. That doesn't equate to the level of intimacy I've had with dh over the years. If gays didn't want to honor marriage, they'd just live together and tell everyone to bugger off. By creating a union, a marriage, however you want to define it, they are making a commitment to each other and proclamation to the friends and family present. Not to mention the intimacy around end of life issues... no matter what a person's family of origin thinks of their choice of life partner. I would hate for my mother to be able to keep my dh away from me at the end of my life because she didn't agree with our 'lifestyle.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 I'm just going to leave this right here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marylou Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Crimson, I would PM this article (CC) to you, but I think there are others who may glean something from it as well. http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MercyA Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 It's possible. I have changed my mind about things I once felt strongly about. I agree. Over the past 15 years or so, I've completely changed my position on several major issues. It saddens me that so many people--of all political and religious persuasions--often seem so completely unwilling to question their assumptions. While I wouldn't say this thread has changed my mind, it has helped me begin to better clarify my position, and I thank you all for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Full oral arguments here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=12-307 If you're not sufficiently nerdy to listen through arguments on standing, etc., they start on the merits at 53:50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommymilkies Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 You can't really discuss gay marriage without Jack Harkness in a kilt. By golly, that had better be the theme of the next Torchwood season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephanieZ Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxMom Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not to mention the intimacy around end of life issues... no matter what a person's family of origin thinks of their choice of life partner. I would hate for my mother to be able to keep my dh away from me at the end of my life because she didn't agree with our 'lifestyle.' That is actually the crux of the reason I (with the support of my husband) had to cut off contact with my mother. She not only disagrees with our "lifestyle" (which makes me wonder a bit) but actively seeks to circumvent and damage it. Of course, I have the legal right to do that, and the law supports my assertion of my spouse as my proper next of kin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Being black is not a chosen behavior, that is the difference. Even if same-gender attraction may have a biological basis, it is the individual's CHOICE whether or not to act on that attraction. A black person cannot choose to abstain from his/her race the way someone can choose to abstain from homos*xual behavior. Sin in the heart and mind is the same as the act. "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 RSV) Or KJV 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 When in past history of humans has the definition of marriage ever been about same sex marriage. It has always always been about a man being legally able to have sex with a woman, many women or with a very young woman, etc. In some very patriarchal societies marriage has always been to the advantage of the men over the women. It has only been within the last 100 years or so that it has been legal to have sex with someone not one's spouse. Never before has marriage in all its many definitions ever meant that same sex couple can be married. Changing this definition is HUGE. Absolutely huge in the scheme of human endeavors. It has only been what? 40 years or so since gay people can openly live as gay people. I assume you're only speaking in terms of US history, because none of this is true in terms of world history. There have certainly been cultures in which homosexuals have been permitted to live openly, including cultures that ritualized and/or glorified homosexual relationships; there have been cultures that allowed homosexual (&/or transvestite) marriages; and in most cultures throughout history unmarried sex (with concubines, slaves, pre-marital or extra-marital lovers, and even rape in warfare) has been extremely common. Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momling Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Yes, each state would have to decide how to deal with other state's unions. I'd prefer 50 different laws. Then I just live in the state that I agree with. I'm a lesbian and we were married when we lived in CT, but our two biggest problems have not been solved by that. First, I had no way to sponsor my partner for a visa because the US govt doesn't recognize our relationship. We've had 15 years of dealing with immigration. Second, we have had to pay about 10,000$ per year more than we would have to if we could file a married federal tax. We know this because every year we file for federal govt as two singles. But for state taxes, we have to complete, but not file a federal married tax form so that we can properly fill out the state married tax form. It's absurd that we can't file as married... And it makes me so angry this time of year to actually have to learn how much more we pay. That said, I'm actually really impressed by this discussion. Most everyone is so thoughtful and tolerant and I'm proud to be a part of this community. We are heading in the right direction and I have confidence that in time we'll get there. (I'm typing this on my phone, so excuse weird typos) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I read the entire thread! Do I win my choice of David Tennant clad in kilt or tutu? I choose kilt. :D I'm a straight, hetero, happily married woman. As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuals have done more to besmirch the "sacred" institution of marriage than gays ever could. All you have to do is read the news out of Hollywood or Washington to see that. The word "marriage" isn't sacred, and it doesn't belong to any one group. Then why are people trying so hard to extend it? That is what befuddles me. You don't care about it's societal expectation, you want to change them, so why even *care* about the word? Why do we care about the word? Because it was the idea of a contractual union of a man and a woman since before they could define it. So if you want to change it, and you mock its meaning and undermine it's relevancy, don't use the word. Find another one, make laws to accommodate those who want to have those unions and use the other name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justamouse Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Sin in the heart and mind is the same as the act. "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:8-9 RSV) Or KJV 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Well, that's not what that means. So it's kind of moot. There are degrees to everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I assume you're only speaking in terms of US history, because none of this is true in terms of world history. There have certainly been cultures in which homosexuals have been permitted to live openly, including cultures that ritualized and/or glorified homosexual relationships; there have been cultures that allowed homosexual (&/or transvestite) marriages; and in most cultures throughout history unmarried sex (with concubines, slaves, pre-marital or extra-marital lovers, and even rape in warfare) has been extremely common. Jackie Actually that would not be true in terms of US History. Some NA tribes were perfectly fine with homosexuality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justasque Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 ...remember, as I said in a previous post, these are the weasels that spent $175,000+ dollars trying to determine the effects of cocaine on the s**uality of Japanese Quail...not certain we ought to be letting them have a say in anything that goes on between two consenting adults! :D I just could not resist Googling this. I found this rather interesting short article, which is worth a read. http://blogs.scienti...d-what-it-does/ "....Senator Coburn clearly thinks that because we already know that cocaine is bad and increases sexual promiscuity, it is no longer worth studying. I rather strongly disagree with this, and so I’d like to use this post to talk a bit about WHY we still need to study the effects cocaine and addictive drugs in general, why we need to study the effects on sexual behavior in particular, and why quail are a good choice...." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenagerMom Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Here's my favorite Meme of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Well, that's not what that means. So it's kind of moot. Why can it not apply? The Bible says nothing about committed relationships between same sex couples. Historically in Biblical times it was a passing phase There are degrees to everything. Romans 3:10 As it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laundrycrisis Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Then why are people trying so hard to extend it? That is what befuddles me. You don't care about it's societal expectation, you want to change them, so why even *care* about the word? Why do we care about the word? Because it was the idea of a contractual union of a man and a woman since before they could define it. So if you want to change it, and you mock its meaning and undermine it's relevancy, don't use the word. Find another one, make laws to accommodate those who want to have those unions and use the other name. Because it comes with legal benefits. They want equal legal recognition and benefits. And IMO we have already proven that "separate but equal" doesn't work. So yes, gay marriages should be legally recognized with the same word as hetero marriages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corraleno Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Why do we care about the word? Because it was the idea of a contractual union of a man and a woman since before they could define it. You keep arguing that marriage between a man and a woman is the only form of marriage ever practiced in the history of the world and that is simply NOT true. There have been cultures in which marriage between people of the same gender has been accepted. And the polygamous "definition" of marriage has been far more common, both across cultures and throughout time, than the monogamous definition we currently have in the US. So if you are going to rely on the argument that only historically accepted forms of marriage should be allowed, then you should support polygamy and gay marriage. If someone wants to insist that the legal definition of marriage, in a secular country, should be based on religious scripture, then they have the right to that belief, but I think they should own up to that, rather than trying to claim that their religious beliefs just happen to be in accord with what all humans have "naturally" done since the first hominids stood up (which was certainly more recent than billions of years ago). Jackie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Then why are people trying so hard to extend it? That is what befuddles me. You don't care about it's societal expectation, you want to change them, so why even *care* about the word? Why do we care about the word? Because it was the idea of a contractual union of a man and a woman since before they could define it. So if you want to change it, and you mock its meaning and undermine it's relevancy, don't use the word. Find another one, make laws to accommodate those who want to have those unions and use the other name. It's just a word; it has no inherent value. To deny its use to others just seems mean-spirited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts