- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,154
- Reaction score
- 22,312
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Terrible poll options.
The ones who will actually call for the use of force to prevent free exercise of rights and liberties.
People can have all the differing opinions they want. But the call of government force to prevent exercise of right is an act of intolerance.
To call for not changing the definition of marriage you call intolerant?
To call for not changing the definition of marriage you call intolerant?
which was my point. new editions and versions of all govt forms, pubs, regs, etc. come out on an almost yearly basis (sometimes more often). which is why arguing that the cost of changing forms to accommodate gay marriage is a factor is ridiculous.
it wasn't an issue then, why should it be now?
I seriously doubt they destroy and re-issue new copies for every single change. And you're talking about something that covers less than 1% of the population. :roll:don't know if anyone ever calculated it. but considering the number of copies of the UCMJ and all the regs it references that are out there that had to be ammended....it wasn't cheap.
Laws are not rewritten every year. Some agencies use the same forms until there is a major change to those forms. Most businesses do not rewrite their forms every year.
I sure don't want my (grand)kids attending a Klan or Nazi Party rally or whatever. I'm willing to bet those are "straight" groups.What he said and I would like to add, how many "straight parades" have any of you been to that made you wish the kids had stayed at home.
Thousands of years?!? LOL! I'm pretty sure negro and interracial "marriage" didn't exist a couple of hundred years ago - at least, not in the USA. Obviously, the definition HAS changed and relatively recently, at that.I wouldn't put it that way. The intolerant ones are the ones who try to silence one side or the other. The intolerant ones are the ones who try to force their views and beliefs on others. The intolerant ones are the ones are those who do not respect other peoples views that are opposite of them. You do not have to agree with anyone's views, but before changing the definition of marriage which has existed for thousands of years, an open debate about it is needed.
WOW! Do you only let them watch G-rated shows, too? How about the news? Or is it OK for them to see blood and guts but not guys in dresses? LOL!I disagree especially when they show up at what has been family type parades for decades
You had NO trouble for the definition to change to allow your inter-racial marriage....why was it ok for the definition to change for you and not for others.
You are aware, are you not, that there were a lot of people that didn't want to see the definition of marriage changed to allow for what they considered your "icky and perverted marriage" that soiled the purity of the races.
Were the bigots that fought against inter-racial marriage more or less tolerant than you are today NP?
Thousands of years?!? LOL! I'm pretty sure negro and interracial "marriage" didn't exist a couple of hundred years ago - at least, not in the USA. Obviously, the definition HAS changed and relatively recently, at that.
You think Webster never changes their definitions??? For that you get 3/3! :lamo :lamo :lamoWhen in doubt, go to Webster: Marriage – 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony. 2. the act of marrying; wedding. 3. the rite or form used in marrying.
The thing here is that inter racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage, i.e. relation between husband and wife. Gay marriage would change the definition, at least according to Webster.
I suppose it wouldn’t be a big change, instead of relation between husband and wife, it could say between a couple. But we are indeed talking about changing the definition that has existed for thousands of years. Inter-racial marriage has also existed for thousands of years. Even in Sparta of ancient Greece where homosexual relations was rampart, the soldier would leave his wife, female and have relations with other male soldiers, but would no marry them. Alexander the Great, is another example.
When in doubt, go to Webster: Marriage – 1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife; married life; wedlock; matrimony. 2. the act of marrying; wedding. 3. the rite or form used in marrying.
The thing here is that inter racial marriage did not change the definition of marriage, i.e. relation between husband and wife. Gay marriage would change the definition, at least according to Webster.
I suppose it wouldn’t be a big change, instead of relation between husband and wife, it could say between a couple. But we are indeed talking about changing the definition that has existed for thousands of years. Inter-racial marriage has also existed for thousands of years. Even in Sparta of ancient Greece where homosexual relations was rampart, the soldier would leave his wife, female and have relations with other male soldiers, but would no marry them. Alexander the Great, is another example.
I can see Mexicans - after all, the Catholics have ruled down there forever. But my guess is not all those "marriages" were performed in churches or recognized by any form of government, which is what we're talking about.Not in the south, but elsewhere in the world, it certainly did. Here in the good old USA, mountain men married Indian women all the time. In the southwest, whites and Mexicans married. Jim Bowie was married to a Mexican gal. One of my ancestors married a Chinese woman while he worked on the rail road. Inter-racial marriage is not new to the USA or the world.
Isn't it liberals who support gay marriage who push inequality in the end though?
I think if you were to poll modern Republicans they would say unanimously that tax rates, inheritance laws, etc. should all be applied equally regardless of income, occupation, gender, race, etc. It seems to me that it's mostly the people who fall into the pro-gay marriage camp who want different standards for different people but want to make sure they're in the group getting the better standard.
You think Webster never changes their definitions??? For that you get 3/3! :lamo :lamo :lamo
Webster's takes the most common usages and incorporates them into their work. As people use words differently, Webster changes the definitions. It's all based on common acceptance of meanings, not some written-in-stone dogma.
It did not change the definition that you posted....but it absolutely changed the definition of "marriage" by the laws on the books at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided by the SCOTUS. Sorry...that is just the facts.
As far a "thousands of years"...errrrrrrrrr....wrong again. What constitutes a "marriage" has changed countless times over the course of history. Nice try though.
I am sure it did, but can you name another country through the two to three thousands years of history that gay marriages were legal? I can name dozens where inter-racial marriages were recognized. This is a whole brand new ball park.
I can see Mexicans - after all, the Catholics have ruled down there forever. But my guess is not all those "marriages" were performed in churches or recognized by any form of government, which is what we're talking about.
But, hey, you're welcomed to link to the documentation that proves your case. I'll read anything that's reasonably acceptable.
The continued call for the exercise of government force against the individual's right to contract....yes.
I am sure it did, but can you name another country through the two to three thousands years of history that gay marriages were legal? I can name dozens where inter-racial marriages were recognized. This is a whole brand new ball park.
I did not even mention the Government............Its you Gays that always go to the activist judicial....I wish you would let the people decide.....