Reply With Quote
I told you already, I invented it while sitting on the ter during a Heat-Spurs game.
including sexuality in marriage is trying to redefine the term and definition, not interpret differently.
I told you already, I invented it while sitting on the ter during a Heat-Spurs game.
So do humans, ex-gays.
You sure defend it like it...
Surely the most logical thing I've read in this thread.
So you agree or disagree that freedom must be defined by us? I guarantee you that Stalin, Castro, Hitler, and every single dictator has a pretty damn convincing explanation of what freedom really is.
I'd say we, as americans, did a pretty damn good job of defining what real Freedom means, what it is.
But then again, you say who are we to define anything. So I guess we made a mistake in taking a stance on what freedom is.
Actually I think I'm going to start suggesting that you're willfully obtuse since you try to pass this weak as a reasonable reply. But in the interest of entertaining the notion that you're actually as befuddled as you seem to want me to believe, the point is there's no legal justification for distinguishing between people, and, by extension, between the unions they choose to enter into. Religions don't have to do anything they don't want to, but by and large, our government isn't set up to discriminate what tax-paying citizens do consentually, or deny rights to couples that are legally the same as other couples. That the discrimination lives on says more about our current body politic than our actual laws. Clear enough?
What if C-A-T spelled DOG?
Marriage was never defined in the first place. Marriage or unions were taken on by religion and redefined to their liking. Its was never theirs to define in the first place. This entire man/women thing is a byproduct of the church. It was common for a union to mean many things long long before the thumpers took it as their own.
No. I'm basically saying who is the Government or Religion to define what marriage should be.
Just because modern day religion stole it for their own doesn't make it right.
What relevance does time have? There is absolutely no importance as to WHEN the cause was taken up, or what it meant in the past, or if the devil himself invented it. The fact remains, it is what it is now.
and the idea of freedom, human rights, and equality was never defined in the first place, either. They were taken on by certain men, philosophers, groups, and governments and redefined to their liking, such as the men who wrote the Cons ution, or the French who wrote the Declaration of the Rights of Man. This entire freedom/human rights thing is a byproduct of men like these. It was common for freedom to mean many things, such as being ruled by a monarchy or dictatorship, long before the humanist/revolutionists took it as their own.
Why, then, do you take the stance that your current definition of marriage is immutable?
And if there was a proposition to give everyone a Cadillac, it would pass EVERYTIME, EVERYWHERE it is put before the people.
Don't dodge.
You tried to say that sexuality is not a choice because 'who would choose to be demonized?'
Your logic was shown as flawed.
So, do you have anything further to say to prove sexuality is not a choice or do you admit defeat?
Well it matters now. In a day and age where bigotry is becoming a thing of the past the argument of who defined marriage, when and why, is plenty relevant. Society managed to evolve away from slavery because the neanderthal like way of thinking was wrong. Just like this bigotry is wrong. The past is pertinent because you learn from it.
Thankfully, your contempt for the masses is irrelevant.
We live in a democracy. Majority rules. A government by the people, and for the people.
Tough . If you hate it so much, move to Cambodia.
Wait. You're defending a temporal definition of a social structure while ascertaining that we've been better off by changing the definition of other temporal social structures?
Bull . The cons ution was written to protect minorities. Otherwise, there is no need whatsoever for a bill of rights.
who had the overs?
If I were to prove that the worst womanizer of all time invented Marriage, a union between man and woman, what does that have to do with us now?
Mankind has seen marriage, and saw that it was good. It works for us on earth. It matters not where it came from or who invented it, or what it meant anymore. What matters is we now have an idea of what we want.
Do we avoid using highways/modern paved roads because Hitler pioneered them? What does it matter?
They are good. That is all.
Is that your definition of freedom? Tough ?
You're good!
The Cons ution, way back then, was written to protect minorities?
The Cons ution was designed for us to operate like a democracy?
I voted for McCain.
Tough . Democracy. Live by it or leave.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions