You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.
Don't worry, I'm sure there are people drafting laws to fix this, as well.
You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.
If she does get preggo, my line is pretty much assured of dominating yours, and that's alright with me - pops.
I think we have reached an impasse, as you're working off the assumptions that
1) marriage has sanctity to only Judeo-Christians and no other religions, or that it has sanctity as all, or that it at least had no sanctity prior to Christianity, and
2) that the definition of marriage was empty or meaningless before Christianity then defined it.
You can't make any progress in your argument until you realize that many of us here, myself included, don't have those same definitions.
I'm hesitant to respond to this, because it is clear that the concept of the sanctity of marriage in the eyes of some men has been lost, totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.
As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage. I am not intolerant of people making choices despite what I think of those choices. No one is suggesting anything other than an admitted, historical, definition of marriage be retained. If this, accepting both biblical and historical precedent, is forcing ones beliefs on another, than I guess you can hold all of history guilty of the same.
I think some of you defending the "gay marriage" movement, are missing, perhaps intentionally, the rate and direction of this movement. I've said it before and I'll say it again, it's not about equality, it never has been.
Some ask, has an particular event taken place? When the question should be, is it likely the event will take place in the future? If you can honestly say you don't think a social institution will ever be sued, forced to perform or recognize homosexual services you have not been watching the news. It can and will happen. Boys using girls bathrooms, yep. Gender by decree, yep. Courts "getting it wrong" at the cost of private livelihood, yep.
If people continue to allow, or embrace, this court ordered "acceptance", is society a more or less stable place for our children? Is it likely the courts are going to treat gun rights, clearly embraced in our defining documents in the same fashion? I think we can all agree on the answer to that question.
Are the people being supported by this decision likely to stand up for your rights in the future? I doubt it, though blindly being the "better man" has significant merits.
I don't think through-out mans existence the concepts of morality, fairness, love for your neighbor etc embraced by most religions have led to the decay of society. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd suggest it's something else while much less powerful, apparently much more appealing.
Perhaps the efforts of a tyrannical minority forcing their views on the majority, christian or not could have a bit of responsibility? Maybe?
totally corrupted by the "everyone has rights" wail of liberalism.
It looks pretty cut and dry, based on what I have said. But there is much I have not said. I'm a white guy with a BA in Spanish who married a Mexican American. Being the only juero in the family, I was politely tolerated, and all but my sister in laws came to like me. Anybody who thinks that whites have a monopoly on the racial superiority thing really need to look at the concept of La Raza. My wife is going to try to talk sense to our daughter, because if her side of the family finds out, they will freak. There are a lot of whites who don't know how Hispanics feel. To call someone a "Gringo" is worse than using the N word, and my wife told me long ago to never, never call someone "Gringo." I feel a lot of whites erroneously think they don't like blacks, when in fact they don't like the way many blacks behave. This is a good guy and I told my daughter that he looks OK to me - so far, but I hid from her my deep seated reservations. I also told her to never hurt his feelings. My wife is intractable on this because of her notions of La Raza. Her sisters still have a hard time accepting me because I am juero. Their antipathy does not extend to our son and daughter, just to me.
We havent reached an impasse. Thats like a tie. When its all over gays will have the right to marry. The wheels of justice hasnt stopped, gays are winning this fight for equal rights. Slowly and surely the world is realizing this.
They cant make any progress in their argument because the argument isnt sound.
Genuine question - if she got pregnant, how would that further change your opinion of her partner's race. I mean, I'd be disappointed if my daughter (I do have a daughter, for the record) has a child out of wedlock or at least outside of being "settled" (whatever that means), but the dude's race is near the last (if not THE last) think I would be worrying about. Particularly in the context of of my daughter's hypothetical poor choice of getting knocked up.
As I've stated multiple times in this thread, I have no problem with equal protection under the law, I do oppose the re-definition of marriage. I am not intolerant of people making choices despite what I think of those choices. No one is suggesting anything other than an admitted, historical, definition of marriage be retained. If this, accepting both biblical and historical precedent, is forcing ones beliefs on another, than I guess you can hold all of history guilty of the same.
Enter your email address to join: