[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 7:59pm.

@zk

Notice how in virtually every post you insult the people on the other side of the issue?

Very classy…I’m done with this topic and you since clearly everyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot and frankly, what can an idiot offer to the discussion?

meadandale, if you call pointing out the flaws in someone’s arguments an insult, then I agree with you.

Otherwise, I reread all of both of our posts, and I don’t think mine contain any more insults than yours. Perhaps mine point out more reasoning flaws than yours. But not really more insults.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 7:59pm.

@zk

Notice how in virtually every post you insult the people on the other side of the issue?

Very classy…I’m done with this topic and you since clearly everyone that doesn’t agree with you is an idiot and frankly, what can an idiot offer to the discussion?

meadandale, if you call pointing out the flaws in someone’s arguments an insult, then I agree with you.

Otherwise, I reread all of both of our posts, and I don’t think mine contain any more insults than yours. Perhaps mine point out more reasoning flaws than yours. But not really more insults.

[zk]

Submitted by marion on May 15, 2008 – 7:08pm.
I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

1. Our nation was not founded on christianity. It was founded on freedom of religion.
2. Our pledge of allegiance does not say “in god we trust.”

The pledge of allegiance does say “under god.” But a) it wasn’t even written until a hundred and twenty years after this country was founded and b) it doesn’t say “under the christian god.

[zk]

Submitted by marion on May 15, 2008 – 7:08pm.
I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

1. Our nation was not founded on christianity. It was founded on freedom of religion.
2. Our pledge of allegiance does not say “in god we trust.”

The pledge of allegiance does say “under god.” But a) it wasn’t even written until a hundred and twenty years after this country was founded and b) it doesn’t say “under the christian god.

[zk]

Submitted by marion on May 15, 2008 – 7:08pm.
I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

1. Our nation was not founded on christianity. It was founded on freedom of religion.
2. Our pledge of allegiance does not say “in god we trust.”

The pledge of allegiance does say “under god.” But a) it wasn’t even written until a hundred and twenty years after this country was founded and b) it doesn’t say “under the christian god.

[zk]

Submitted by marion on May 15, 2008 – 7:08pm.
I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

1. Our nation was not founded on christianity. It was founded on freedom of religion.
2. Our pledge of allegiance does not say “in god we trust.”

The pledge of allegiance does say “under god.” But a) it wasn’t even written until a hundred and twenty years after this country was founded and b) it doesn’t say “under the christian god.

[zk]

Submitted by marion on May 15, 2008 – 7:08pm.
I think this is a fair and reasonable compromise for our society.

Maybe the government thinks if it agrees to gay marriage, then it means they are condoning the lifestyle. What you guys have to realize is this nation was founded on Christianity. Our pledge of allegiance says, “In God we trust”.

1. Our nation was not founded on christianity. It was founded on freedom of religion.
2. Our pledge of allegiance does not say “in god we trust.”

The pledge of allegiance does say “under god.” But a) it wasn’t even written until a hundred and twenty years after this country was founded and b) it doesn’t say “under the christian god.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

Submitted by meadandale on May 15, 2008 – 2:38pm.
“Why not say it’s marriage?”

Because MARRIAGE is a religious institution dating back thousands of years and is defined as a union between a man and a woman in every religion that it is practiced in.

The government should never have gotten involved in marriage in the first place (blood tests, certificates, …).

I have no problem with government establishing a ‘legal union’ law, but again, you are going to have to resolve the questions about who it applies to–most people just conveniently sweep this problem under the rug. Can I have a legal union with my dog? With my car? With multiple partners?

However, I will never, ever be okay with the government calling Adam and Steve “married”. It’s simply not the case. This says nothing about the fact that they love each other or are committed partners–I don’t dispute this is the case. They just aren’t “married”.

No lawsuit you file, PR campaign you plaster on bill boards, screaming from your bully pulpit or angry foot stomping by gay marriage supporters will persuade me to alter this viewpoint. It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.

It seems you’re awful upset about a mere word. Especially considering that your definition of the word is narrow enough as to be incorrect. Marriage in the religious sense is not the only definition of marriage. But if it would appease all the people who incorrectly define the word marriage, I’d be perfectly happy with a law that allowed “civil unions” or “legal partnerships” or whatever you wanted to call them.

As far as a legal union with your dog or car, that’s another subject. One that doesn’t really seem worthy of debate. We’re debating gay marriage (or civil union). Let’s debate that.

“It has nothing to do with ignorance–it’s just how I feel and frankly I don’t need to justify or explain it to anyone.”

Which, of course, is the usual rationale of the ignorant.

[zk]

DWCAP:
“In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[zk]

DWCAP:
“In both cases, if I wanted the gov benfits of tax and visitation and such, I would go to the courthouse and fill out a form explaining our union to the Gov. On that form the word “marriage” would be absent. It is a contractual agreement between me and ________ to take care of each other in a economic and social way so as to improve the lives of both parties.”

Right. That should be legal. But it’s not. It sounds like you think it should be. Do you?

[Author]

Posts