What is this "defining marriage" issue all about anyhow, money? Do we really need to change the definition of marriage because homosexuals want a discount on their car insurance? My personal belief is if that is what the majority wants, then fine give them a discount, but call it something else. I was raised with a specific definition of the term 'marriage". Now I am being told that the long standing accepted definition has to be changed. Seems like there are always those that are attempting to redefine things that have already been defined. So why? For their own personal gain? Is comprehending a definition really forcing ones beliefs on someone else? When is a definition no longer a definition? Now, somehow definitions have become beliefs. Beliefs that can be changed whenever they suit ones personal goals. Hey if people want discounts on insurance or taxes or other benefits whatever. I guess this desire to change the definition of a term into something with a different meaning is an aspect of sociology that I don't really understand. Looking up the definition of marriage in the dictionary shows that this is happening regardless of how we vote. It also shows the confusion caused by doing so as there are several definitions offered and they do not necessarily agree with one another.
Depends on what the definition of "is" is? Is that what we have become? How sad that we cannot just call it what it is and has always been rather than twisting it into something it is not. I think some of you just feed on conflict. I could not care less what sort of behavior anyone wants to engage in between themselves but don't try to make it what it is not. Will we expand the definition further now to include inter-species unions. That seems to be the way you are headed. Some pet owner will surely want to marry their dog, they already pretend that they are family somehow. What a sick society this has become!
This post Gypsy is illogical and offensive and the exact argument (if you can call it that) you make continues the bias and hate toward people with opinions different than yours-----even if it doesnt effect you at all. I shouldnt even be wasting the energy to respond to this. Equating two loving humans with a human marrying a dog----I embarrased just hearing someone say this.
This post Gypsy is illogical and offensive and the exact argument (if you can call it that) you make continues the bias and hate toward people with opinions different than yours-----even if it doesnt effect you at all. I shouldnt even be wasting the energy to respond to this. Equating two loving humans with a human marrying a dog----I embarrased just hearing someone say this.
Being absurd to point out an absurdity is one of those tactics that liberals never get. Hey Vulch, how about 3 loving humans? It would fit your argument.
Exposing absurdity with the absurd, nothing illogical about it. Some people DO think of their pets as "family" and wish to confer human rights on them. Say it is not so!
Gypsy-------Beat---------This is the same logic used 150 years ago to say "What!??!?1 Give a nig&er the right to vote? What next, give it to a mule?!". The same logic used 80 years ago to say "What?!?! Not let an 11 yr old work 16 hrs straight in a factory locked from the outide? What next, pay them for not coming in?"------At the time they may have made sense to the closed minded or those harkening to a "good ole day" (which rarely ever existed), but with the benefit of hindsight we realize they were either biggoted, or afraid of change, or just a basic d!ck to others because of how they perceived it would effect them.
Actually I didnt. I stated no one (which I am a part of), or very few are actually proposing this. In turn, no I do not believe it should be legal per se, but nor do I think it needs to be a national issue. No one is pushing for that except the far out there and they have little support for it. The ones who do talk about it is the side who doesnt favor gay marriage in an attempt to equate the two, but it doesnt work.
Actually I didnt. I stated no one (which I am a part of), or very few are actually proposing this. In turn, no I do not believe it should be legal per se, but nor do I think it needs to be a national issue. No one is pushing for that except the far out there and they have little support for it. The ones who do talk about it is the side who doesnt favor gay marriage in an attempt to equate the two, but it doesnt work.
Thanks for an answer. Why do you think it should be illegal? What legal or moral reason do you base it on? 3 loving people, freedom of religion, not defined in the constitution. You can't just use these things when they suit your argument.
Again, you are making an argument and maybe its a good one----but I dont truly feel it is. No one is trying to allow 3 or more peopel to be married, so again its a deflection from the REAL issue at hand in this country. Also, I didnt say it should be legal or illegal---I dont know how I feel and I have a hard time thinking a real push for this will ever happen. Monetairly it wont happen because insurance lobbies would never take on the extra people that would come of it. Again, and most iomporantly, we are getting away from the real question of gay marriage which is being considered and deeply discussed as a national and state issue----this is not.
Again, you are making an argument and maybe its a good one----but I dont truly feel it is. No one is trying to allow 3 or more peopel to be married, so again its a deflection from the REAL issue at hand in this country. Also, I didnt say it should be legal or illegal---I dont know how I feel and I have a hard time thinking a real push for this will ever happen. Monetairly it wont happen because insurance lobbies would never take on the extra people that would come of it. Again, and most iomporantly, we are getting away from the real question of gay marriage which is being considered and deeply discussed as a national and state issue----this is not.
So if you don't have to think about it, no big deal? Not in the news? don't have to worry? My arguments are based on principles. And I try not to waiver on them. If we don't stand for them, we'll always be wishy-washy. Its' quite clear to me that it is illegal to have a 3 person marriage. And I think most people who do believe that it should be illegal, do so for moral reasons. Tell me, do you believe in nature's laws? Morality? You showed disgust when the absurd reference to animals was used. How about a 3-some? Any disgust there?
I dont see any principles in denying two people the right to marry----I only see a biased opinion on old fashioned thinking and infringing on the rights of individuals, sorry. I dont know what I feel about morality, other than it being as wishy-washy as anythign else with no definitive answer between two cultures and often not even two people. And as far as disgust, no Im not as disgusted by 3 people having sex with one another as I am with animals and humans getting married. Mainly because the latter is absurd and illogical and if you need a real spelling out of it an animal cannot consent to activities a human can due to their less developed brain and speech capabilities.
Comments