- Joined
- Jul 19, 2014
- Messages
- 62,963
- Reaction score
- 27,366
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
And they had same sex marriages in Ancient Rome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And , it Tibet, they practice polyandry
And they had same sex marriages in Ancient Rome.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
So what?? A good old traditional marriage is between a man, a woman, and his concubine.
Marriage is between one man and one woman. If we called it something else I'd be fine. Corporate marriage as in Robert Rimmer would be fine with me......any configuration.
The issue should have been decided by an elected legislature not a judge. Maine had gay marriage. It was a justification for nationwide gay marriage. Maine has constitutional carry. The exact same rational could be used for a national constitutional carry. Constitutional carry should be thr law of the land like gay marriage.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
All I’m saying is while same sex marriage should be legal. You shouldn’t be able to force an individual to take part in a same sex marriage that doesn’t agree with it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he believed Bardwell should lose his license, and the National Urban League called for an investigation into the incident by the U.S. Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, saying in a statement that Bardwell's actions were "a huge step backward in social justice."
To answer the original post. I do not care about what others do. I do care that the meaning of marriage was muddied by the court.
All they (gay lobby) needed to do to win me is come up with another term, not that acceptance matters.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Maybe so....The meaning of marriage was not "muddled" by any court. It has always included other things, even if you don't wish to accept that. At times, the legal meaning of marriage has been different than simply "one man and one woman" as well. It was limited far further than that and even before this country, it was opened to include much more. The meaning changed with time, as it should. Just as it used to specifically restrict those who were of two different races or at least who were white from marrying someone who wasn't. That too was changed by the courts, not the people voting for it all over the US.
Maybe so....
Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Maybe so....
Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Maybe so....
Don't like it. Doubt it. I am not alone on this.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
No one is forced to take part in any arrangement they don't agree with. They are only forced to do what they already agreed to do, serve the public, if they own a business that might cater to weddings or married people and they may not agree with certain people who are married.
It is funny to me how people say this now, yet there was little to no discussion about such things when it came to those against interracial marriages having to provide cakes or flowers or photography services or any other type of services to interracial couples. Hell, we even had staunch opponents of same sex marriage stand up and say "you can't do that" when it was revealed that a Justice of the Peace in Louisiana had been sending interracial couples elsewhere to get married because he "didn't agree" with their lifestyle choices, felt it was harmful to children.
Louisiana justice who refused interracial marriage resigns - CNN.com
Jindal was (and likely is still) against same sex marriage and would support someone in Bardwell's place who refused same sex couples.
Jindal offended by same-sex marriage question
Like most, he dodges questions that reflect the hypocrisy here. According to many who disagree with interracial marriages, it is against their beliefs. Those aren't popular beliefs, but that, to some, justifies saying "well that is different". It isn't different at all. It is the same thing, beliefs that are being used to prevent others from entering into marriages that they believe are "wrong", a sin to God. Hell there are many religions/beliefs that say people should only marry within their own faith. So would it be okay for someone to refuse to offer some sort of service to an interfaith couple?
FYI I support same sex marriage. Not just accept it, I support it. But I also support the right of individual.
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.No it wouldn't have worked. Because it would have been a waste of money and led to several more lawsuits. Again, you nor those who are in an opposite sex marriage own the word "marriage", regardless of how much you believe you do. You don't have a right to keep it from changing meaning, to include those who are of the same sex entering into the same familial relationship.
Don't care.... just call it something else
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
FYI I support same sex marriage. Not just accept it, I support it. But I also support the right of individual.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.
One of my daughter's kindergarten classmates "married" her teacher. Each had a baby artificiality inseminated and gave birth within a month. "Divorced " now. Made for a nice story though in the local paper. Not relevant to topic but relative to my mindset on topic.
Don't care.... just call it something else
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
36 years married; 2 kids, 2 grandchildren so far.
One of my daughter's kindergarten classmates "married" her teacher. Each had a baby artificiality inseminated and gave birth within a month. "Divorced " now. Made for a nice story though in the local paper. Not relevant to topic but relative to my mindset on topic.
Don't care.... just call it something else
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Rights of individuals are always limited to an extent, depending on the circumstances. We limit the rights of individuals to refuse to provide service for certain reasons now, even to certain types of couples/events. Why should a caterer have to provide some sort of service (even if they don't themselves attend) to an interracial marriage/wedding or interfaith marriage/wedding, but not to a same sex marriage/wedding when all could be refused for the same reason, religious beliefs? I feel that if you have any doubts about who you would serve in a business capacity that you are entering into, then you should probably not do business that way. Find another way to make money.
Just telling you my thoughts on issue. Traditional marriage lost in the court. I know that. I accept that. I do not like it and feel it is bad for society.
3/5 was a compromise for apportioning representation that ultimately benefited slaves. Had the south been able to count slaves as 1 in the census there would have been many more representatives in slave states. Not germain to this issue but interesting aside.......
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
Marriage "or" whatever (name to be determined) under the law to be equal works or rather would have worked.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
'Separate but equal' was determined unConstitutional.
Lursa your home page is very miss leading. I thought you opposed abortion based on your home page.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk