Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some do, yes. But they should never be forced to be changed because a small minority insists upon it - especially when the word in question is one that describes a fundamental institution of society. If people eventually want to redefine the word they can do so democratically. Until then, you are only complaining that people won't do what you insist they do against their will.
I have a feeling this is going to make alot of North Carolinians lean towards Obama.
A lot of North Carolinans already leaned towards Obama - in fact many of his supporters voted for Amendment One. And isn't it interesting that until just today - the president refused to publicly support gay marriage. Your premise - while technically true - is a bit faulty.
I am not being asked to prove anything - I am being asked for the source of a definition. Do you deny that marriage has a definition? If I did what burdell asked - I could be asked to give the source of the definition of every word in the dictionary - which I won't do because I have better things to do. Burdell wants to know the source of the word - Burdell can do the research by his/herself.
Serious question; do any of you think homosexuals would do better to not use the term, "marriage"? I mean if they lobbied for all the rights of marriage but not use the word, would they be more successful?
It's not our fault the term "marriage" was attached to the law, and it certainly doesn't mean we should be denied access to said law.
Thank the good Lord Jesus and people of NC the ban has been passed! Liberals think they have won the war over this country. Yeah right! The war is JUST beginning. Republicans are going to take back this country one by one!!
It forces me to recognize the validity of a relationship that I don't believe is valid.It is the imposition of another persons view of morality on myself. My position is clear: gays can have their relationships - I disagree, but I'm not willing to legislate my view(not quite Taliban-like, is it?) I support civil unions - and defend there enforcement in our courts. I draw the line at marriage - and doing so is not violating any civil rights. It is stating that the word marriage has a definition and that our laws should recognize that definition.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier
I am not being asked to prove anything - I am being asked for the source of a definition. Do you deny that marriage has a definition? If I did what burdell asked - I could be asked to give the source of the definition of every word in the dictionary - which I won't do because I have better things to do. Burdell wants to know the source of the word - Burdell can do the research by his/herself.
Well then WHY claim a word shouldn't be redefined if you don't know the souce of the definition in the first place? What makes you so sure the definition has any vaildity to start with?
BTW, you've claimed marriage is a contract, since when are contracts not subject to revision(i. e. redefinition)?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
