I never felt they they are not worthy of everything that marriage is - except the word marriage itself. If they want the word then have them get married in the definition of the word and not seek to delude it for their own purposes. it's only about changing the definition of the word not about rights or treating someone as less than someone else. They should have every right that goes along with a traditional marraige in the eyes of the law but the word for marriage is only for those who fit it's definition.
Semantics has nothing to do with this one Hobbes. It has everything to do with equal rights. It may be preferable to some to amend thousands of laws just for peace of mind, but legally speaking, it would be much easier to just allow them to call it marriage. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30326.html
So..Easy, makes it right? P.S. That entire quote, is much of nothing, surely a Democrat Congress, with a Democrat President that can work up a 1200 page healthcare bill, can certainly amend current federal rules, and laws in the traditional manner (striking the word marriage, and inserting 'marriage, or other legally recognized union'), as for rules, pertaining to executive branch employment, the President can fix that all by his little lonesome.
At the end of the end the day, that is it's purpose. I can't speak for others in here, but how many people lives are greater because they have slept with multiple partners? It's not a religious thing. Just asking if the quality of one's life better because of it.
That's not the point. The point is that it is not just semantics. Your assertion that it is, is just nonsense. Continuing to defend a word rather than its consequences is what is semantics. Probably easier to just go to the link for a better understanding as the copy/paste did more harm than good.
In case anyone is wondering, this guy is the same one that used to have Obama with the Spock ears for an avatar. He's an obvious troll, and one that deserves very little attention.
I don't see a problem with letting same sex couples get married, or joined, or civil union-ed or whatever. It doesn't really matter whats its called. However the laws need to change to provide the same benefits that are provided to hetero married people. That's a civil rights issues. And unfortunately its not so easy to get a bunch of federal laws changed by using some White-out on the fed law books... I partook in the "sacrament" of marriage and it won't bother me if Ted and John or Lilly and Debbie partake in the "sacrament" either. Marriage is a union - what's the difference if its same sex or not. If a brother and sister want to marry that's not illegal and they get all the benefits of a hetero marriage - it is much more disgusting than a same sex marriage - but its legal with all the same benefits. (although that also depends on what your sister looks like). If the word marriage is so holy, why can the justice of the peace perform a marriage? Isn't it a sacrament reserved for church-goers and holier-than-thous? If a couple gets married in international waters on a cruise ship by a Mexican captain, does that count? The judge, the priest, and the captain all claim they can marry you because of the "powers invested in me" What happened to the sacred sacrament part? Why can I go apply for a marriage license at the post office or municipal building? That counts. I can't get married in a church until I have a legal marriage license. Kinda strange how the government overrules God yet marriage is considered holy. What happened to separation of church and state? And what if you get the marriage license and skip the church part all together. Does God not recognize you as a married couple? You are not married in the "eyes of the church" (but the alter boys are free game). What if 2 people get married through a church and the husband beats his wife. Another couple marry with a standard license, and don't get it done in church. However, the non-church married couple both believe in God and love and care for each other as a model married couple. Does God make them go their separate ways when they die? Does someone go to hell for failing to get the church ceremony done? I'm confused. Who has the power to marry people - God or the government? I always thought it was a decision between 2 people and a license to show you are legally together. So whats the difference if those 2 people are a man and a woman, or 2 women, or 2 men? I'm just looking for a little consistency in the argument. Both sides of the argument have holes and I don't like the double standards each "party" slings at the other. This is like the double standard of the abortion argument - If pro-life is right, and we protect the life of an unborn fetus because the fetus cannot choose, then when the fetus grows up - it has the right to choose - hence making suicide legal. You can't have it both ways...
Ahhh yes, the persecuted white majority. Wouldn't be so bad if there weren't so much guilt involved...
My life is greater. I practiced having and learning about sex on 68 different women, and copulating many MANY times with 50% of them, prior to meeting my wife. Now I am able to perform sexually explicit acts better than Peter North for her, and in turn making her a happy lover and wife and wanting to stay with me, thus further reducing the divorce rate. There you have it folks - premarital sex justified. Thank you, I'll be here all week.....
Sounds like you're scared of me. Why are you concerned if others choose to interact? Hold your ground and make your arguments. Stop acting like a mental midget who is afraid to think.
I guess Gunther doesn't communicate via the Haiku anymore..... sex is for making babies please daddy, don't touch me spock ears
Man, you're telling ME! Straight, white, non-elderly, male - it's friggin' torture. I try to cry at least once a week. You know, just to let my oppressors know that I'm reachable.
