Texas Religious Liberty Law Signed

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

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
2,052
Location
Oxford, MS
Just what is the problem in supporting the age old concept of marriage. That is the basis of society. Now, instead, we have folks that cannot determine their own gender, even standing in front of their mirror. Thank you media for creating such a confused society.

nothing wrong with supporting it, but i also don't see anything wrong with expanding it, either. If you want to bring trans folks into the mix, we can. But as a concept (two people loving each other and forming a family) i have yet to see a legitimate reason two grown adults can't form such a bond* (*excluding subjective religious reasons, i mean).
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
2,052
Location
Oxford, MS
Marriage is a noun; a thing; a centuries old institution involving a man and a woman.

Why don't we declare a sandpile to be one of the great pyramids?

When you drastically change the ingredients of a recipe, the results will not be the same. In this case, they're not even close.

Again, just my 2¢... :drunk2:

isn't the foundation of marriage love? Or are you including things like arranged marriages, child marriages, etc (you know, from centuries old). Why does two men or two women 'drastically change the ingredients' if the foundation is still love?
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,858
Reaction score
2,052
Location
Oxford, MS
I never said that the media 'created' these issues; only that they promoted them.

My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

That said, if the media didn't create the issue, then the issue was already there and the media drew attention to it, i guess. Like 'hey, did you know there is a group of people in America who are being denied equal access under the law? Maybe we should do a story or two about it. I wonder if anyone would care. Lets find out!'
 
Last edited:

RustedBeef

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 10, 2016
Messages
803
Reaction score
268
Location
Stillwater
I think it's gross. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to become legally married.

I've talked with some people who seemed to have some kind of hatred for gays before, but I can't really tell if they're serious or not. Doesn't make a lot of sense to get bent out of shape over something that doesn't affect you. I think most of the time they're just exaggerating their opinion for show

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
 

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
Does anybody remember back in 1957 when McDonalds WED catchup and Mustard?
People have begun to improperly marry verbs and adjectives. Young people. "Eat Healthy, Play aggressive"?
The feminist's are forcing us to couple singulars with plurals. "Everybody should eat their lunch." "It's cold outside so everyone should wear their coat."
Doctors, Lawyers, and college professors are misusing "hopefully."

When Terry and I were kids, nobody would dare say Hopefully, when they meant "It is to be hoped."
or "we can be hopeful." It's getting out of hand. I blame the Democrats.
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
14,757
Location
Southern Oklahoma
isn't the foundation of marriage love? Or are you including things like arranged marriages, child marriages, etc (you know, from centuries old). Why does two men or two women 'drastically change the ingredients' if the foundation is still love?
Nobody said the foundation is love. Marriage and love are neither mutually inclusive, nor mutually exclusive.

The foundation of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, the concept of adulthood has changed over the centuries, but the concept of marriage has not.

There have been (and probably always will be) loveless marriages. Arranged marriages (whatever the criteria) can still result in love between the man & woman.

Your sandpile is not a pyramid.
:drunk2:
 

ignerntbend

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
15,797
Reaction score
3,270
Location
Oklahoma
The foundation of marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Indeed, the concept of adulthood has changed over the centuries, but the concept of marriage has not.



:drunk2:
Sure it has, Mac. How long ago was it that interracial marriage was not permitted? What about the Jew marrying the catholic?
The Reform Jew marrying the Ultra- Orthodox.?The Roman Catholic marrying the Eastern Orthodox?
You have all kinds of people over the centuries defining marriage. It's not really that big a deal to me, but I don't see how anyone can claim ownership of a word. A certificate of marriage, in the modern world is a contract between two people and the state. That doesn't prevent anyone from being joined in Holy Matrimony in the church. It doesn't change your rights at all.
 

MacFromOK

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
13,759
Reaction score
14,757
Location
Southern Oklahoma
Sure it has, Mac. How long ago was it that interracial marriage was not permitted? What about the Jew marrying the catholic?
The Reform Jew marrying the Ultra- Orthodox.?The Roman Catholic marrying the Eastern Orthodox?
You have all kinds of people over the centuries defining marriage.
Historical restrictions on marriage due to race or religion nevertheless did not redefine marriage to include anything other than a man and a woman.
:drunk2:
 

Glock 40

Problem Solver
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
6,282
Reaction score
9,523
Location
Tulsa
The only reason the government is in the marriage business is to tax it plain and simple. Marriage was created by GOD and defined as a union of A Man and A Woman before GOD.

I could care less what the government calls the tax form I have to buy to make them give me tax credits due to my cohabitation with my wife. I could also care less if 2 men, 2 women or 1 alien and one Q person get that same credit.

What makes my marriage a marriage is the vow my wife and I took before GOD. Not the paper I had to pay $25 for that made the government acknowledge it for tax purposes. My oath is to my wife and GOD not to the state.
 

gerhard1

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
4,547
Reaction score
3,494
Location
Enid, OK
My apologies for misrepresenting your position.

That said, if the media didn't create the issue, then the issue was already there and the media drew attention to it, i guess. Like 'hey, did you know there is a group of people in America who are being denied equal access under the law? Maybe we should do a story or two about it. I wonder if anyone would care. Lets find out!'
Thank you; that's very kind.

I see a difference between reporting and promoting. Take guns as an example again. The NRA and other pro-gun groups feel--and I agree with them--that the media does not do a good job of presenting their views largely because the media has prejudice against them and conservatives in general. Like I said earlier, the media in general shouts the views of the Brady Bunch from the rooftops, rarely asking challenging questions but will vigorously grill pro-gun people. Even Fox, which is fairer by far than other networks did not challenge a Colorado sheriff when he opined that concealed carry would lead to more violence. Then there was a reporter who worked for NBC (but don't hold me to that) who was researching a gun bill, and contacted then-Rep. Charles Schumer for information and then contacted the Brady Center, and got their input. When it was suggested that the NRA be contacted this was flatly rejected on the grounds that the NRA was 'biased'.

And then there's this. One issue was almost entirely a creation of the media. That is the 'cop-killer' bullet. KTW, the maker had a policy of restricting sales to LE and military only, so there was no problem with them. This media-created controversy enabled the gun-control advocates to advance the notion that cops were in grave danger because of these and other AP rounds. The claim was brought forth that the NRA had a new group that it cared nothing about; cops. Earlier, it was babies and little old ladies. Okay, I’m exaggerating slightly there. My brother, a cop at the time, was pissed-off at the NRA for opposing the bill, and was not aware until I told him several years later that the final bill passed with the support of the NRA. Somehow that little detail never got reported. The suspicion is there that the primary reason it was not reported was so the gun-control advocates could claim credit for the bill.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom