SCOTUS Rules In Favor Of Marriage Equality

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,918
Reaction score
2,123
Location
Oxford, MS
I don’t see why the definition of a word had to be changed for this.

Without getting into the rest of your statement, i think there are two parts to this issue about defining marriage.

The first, and perhaps biggest, reason that this had to happen was that so many laws were written around the word 'marriage' and civil unions didn't rise to the same level. I.e. couples in a civil union were still excluded from many of the legal protections/items that 'marriage' provided. Plus, why create two levels of legal definitions when it wasn't needed?

Second, there has never been a religious requirement for marriage. All marriages were lumped together. It was only when sam-sex couples started trying to get married that we had this knee-jerk reaction to define what a marriage should be.

If people want to separate out the two, that's great, but that'd mean getting the government out of the 'marriage' business, which has been discussed.
 

SM Rider

Sharpshooter
Joined
Dec 18, 2014
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
Reality
You fellas are as dense as bricks. Arguing over what a non-living, non-human, non-entity "says" to do. Ya'll living in Plato's Cave. I can understand the position of those who reject the idea of the Creator existing but reading what so called religious people write who are living and obeying dictates of a non-existent shadow world is priceless. Your master is not God but yourselves and the fools you choose to be your masters. Simply priceless. :)
 

MadDogs

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
631
Location
Edmond, OK
Without getting into the rest of your statement, i think there are two parts to this issue about defining marriage.

The first, and perhaps biggest, reason that this had to happen was that so many laws were written around the word 'marriage' and civil unions didn't rise to the same level. I.e. couples in a civil union were still excluded from many of the legal protections/items that 'marriage' provided. Plus, why create two levels of legal definitions when it wasn't needed?

Second, there has never been a religious requirement for marriage. All marriages were lumped together. It was only when sam-sex couples started trying to get married that we had this knee-jerk reaction to define what a marriage should be.

If people want to separate out the two, that's great, but that'd mean getting the government out of the 'marriage' business, which has been discussed.

I fully agree with the government getting out of the marriage business. And the issue could have been resolved without redefining the word.
 

MadDogs

Sharpshooter
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
2,960
Reaction score
631
Location
Edmond, OK
Einstein.....you don't read much do you. Pull your head out.

Don't the gays know that God hates them? They're all going to hell. I know this because I read the bible. You all don't know these things, because you aren't as God loving as I am.

Religion = Hate.

Don't need to argue. What I say is a fact. This thread and history have already proven my point.

What I am “reading” is some pathetic trolling. Perhaps you should man-up and simply admit you are a bigot? That way it puts your credibility into perspective.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,918
Reaction score
2,123
Location
Oxford, MS
And the issue could have been resolved without redefining the word.

Likely so. I guess i should have asked how you feel it has been redefined exactly.

Also, if you're interested in an interesting book, and haven't already read it, check out "The Professor and the Madman"


it's the story of the oxford english dictionary and how words came to mean the things they do.
 

HMCS(FMF)Ret.

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
2,892
Reaction score
1,794
Location
Norman, Oklahoma
You fellas are as dense as bricks. Arguing over what a non-living, non-human, non-entity "says" to do. Ya'll living in Plato's Cave. I can understand the position of those who reject the idea of the Creator existing but reading what so called religious people write who are living and obeying dictates of a non-existent shadow world is priceless. Your master is not God but yourselves and the fools you choose to be your masters. Simply priceless. :)

++++1
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom