Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
I agree!
and boldng is mine ;)
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
I don't hate marriage as such, just the general attitude towards marriage :-)
I realize your thoughts on this. And, as I already replied to you, I understand your reasoning, although I ultimately don't agree.
However, my thoughts on that particular subject are that the general attitude toward marriage at this time seems steeped in a "what's in it for me" and a "happily ever after" Disney cartoon movie mentality.
And gays cannot be blamed for that. Heterosexuals were headed down that path long before the issue of gay marriage was ever mentioned.
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage
Balderdaash and codswallop. Overblown bloviating.
The "entire history" began as purely a business arrangement between two men - the exchange of property. Soooo "sacred" - NOT!
And, with a 52% DIVORCE rate amongst heterosexuals, it hardly adds a modicum of 'sanctity' to the institution, which you heterosexuals have turned into a TV game show ('Who Want To Marry, um, That Guy Over There', and it only has to last 55 hours thanks to the VERY heterosexual Ms Spears). Yes, SOOOOOO 'sanctified' - NOT!
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
Yes. Screw the "entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage." The argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. For somebody who claims to be rational, you seem awfully fond of logical fallacies.
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
Good luck with that one.
Marriage is sacred now? I don't believe it. If it was sacred it wouldn't be a contract issued by the state.
The dwarves of yore made mighty spells, While hammers fell like ringing bells In places deep, where dark things sleep, In hollow halls beneath the fells.
For ancient king and elvish lord There many a gloaming golden hoard They shaped and wrought, and light they caught To hide in gems on hilt of sword. - J.R.R. Tolkien
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
Yes. Screw the "entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage." The argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. For somebody who claims to be rational, you seem awfully fond of logical fallacies.
You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved (so much for "tradition") up until now, in order to pander to the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.
And anybody who disagrees should just bow down to the adolecent rage sentiments of "screw it" and "sit down and shut up if you don't like it."
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage
Balderdaash and codswallop. Overblown bloviating.
The "entire history" began as purely a business arrangement between two men - the exchange of property. Soooo "sacred" - NOT!
And, with a 52% DIVORCE rate amongst heterosexuals, it hardly adds a modicum of 'sanctity' to the institution, which you heterosexuals have turned into a TV game show ('Who Want To Marry, um, That Guy Over There', and it only has to last 55 hours thanks to the VERY heterosexual Ms Spears). Yes, SOOOOOO 'sanctified' - NOT!
Marriage may or may not be crap. That is not the point of this thread. The entire point of this thread is that if straights can marry, gays should be able to marry too. And the gay marriages shouldn't be called "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," "connubial contraptions," or some other stupid name. They should be called "marriages," and any straights who don't like it should be told where to shove it.
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
Good luck with that one.
Marriage has not throughout history been sacred. To say this is to not know any history at all.
Marriage is only as sacred as the couple getting married. It is by and large a legal contract. Its specialness only imparted by the couple. And the couple can be male and female, male and male or female and female.
Other then that is a legal contract.
Up until very recently women were sold by their fathers and purchased by their husbands. Not sacred at all.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.. "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
So, in other words, the sum of the entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage has been the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships. And anybody who might question this bizzare and pandering rationalization should just sit down and shut up.
Yes. Screw the "entire history of the societal and sacred institution of marriage." The argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. For somebody who claims to be rational, you seem awfully fond of logical fallacies.
You missed the point. Your idea seems to hinge upon the notion that marriage has existed, and evolved (so much for "tradition") up until now, in order to pander to the affirmation of homosexuality and gay relationships.
No. I'm saying it can and should be made to do so.
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
