{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
11/8/2014 7:49:22 PM
21
I am fine with it I just think it shouldn't be called marriage
English
-
Separate but equal. Your not fine with it.
-
Yes I am, the definition of marriage is the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman.
-
And that definition is where?
-
In the dictionary. It's been the definition for about a couple thousand years
-
Which dictionary? And unless it's a legal document, it doesn't matter.
-
Merriam dictionary. Marriage came from religion and it wouldn't be right if they called it marriage
-
Modern marriage came from religious tradition, but the idea of marriage didn't. Some animals have lifelong mates, they are essentially married. Are those animals holding a ceremony in a church? No, but lots of humans do. It is blatant discrimination to not let a certain demographic have that ceremony, in that church. Your argument that marriage is between a man and a a woman has no grounds. There is no reason for it to be like that, besides the fact that it is ingrained in people's minds! You know what else used to be ingrained in people's minds? The earth is flat The sun orbits the earth Africans are lesser beings We proved all these wrong. Marriage doesn't require proof. It is legal, not religious. It is a social law that governs the "sanctity of marriage", and social laws aren't real laws. Open your eyes, there's a reason we have a constitution, and a bill of rights, to prevent legal inequality.
-
lol, your comparisons are laughable. There is a difference between reality and morals. And I thought liberals don't like the constitution. So do you support incest? Pedophiles? It says nothing about marrige in the constitution
-
There's a difference between abuse (pedophilia, each partner must be mentally stable enough to consent) biological risks (birth defects from incense) and homosexuality. There are no reasons gays shouldn't be able to marry, it isn't detrimental to anything else.
-
I am fine with gays getting married I just think it should be called something else
-
Why? If it's the exact same thing as marriage, [i]just call it marriage[/i].
-
No, it would go against my beliefs. Just call it partnership.
-
Edited by jules: 11/8/2014 10:10:15 PMYour beliefs. Your beliefs. [i]your -blam!-ing beliefs[/i] The world does not follow "your beliefs" What if my beliefs were that ONLY gays could get married? You would have to call hetero-marriage a partnership, right? [i]Hell no[/i]. You'd call me an idiot. Your logic is flawed.
-
The old separate but equal argument, eh?
-
Yes I am, the definition of marriage is the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman.
-
So sort of like what the blacks, oh sorry, [i]African-Americans[/i] had to go through? Seperate but equal?
-
Was I alive during that time period? Nope
-
The idea is still there, [i]Seperate but equal[/i], and your response shows the rest of your ignorance.
-
Except the definition of marriage means men=woman. And I never said gays have equal rights right now In America. I just think it should be legalized in all the states but called partnership. It's not suppressing there rights. By your logic equal means white only
-
That's not what I meant, but yeah, now I see what you mean, sorry for being so hostile towards you.
-
[quote]Yes I am[/quote] Good job copy/pasting the same message over and over. It doesn't even make grammatical sense when put as an answer to my question.
