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.
Okay folks, let's get this discussion back on topic. The topic is: "Obama Administration Says Marriage Law Unfair", not "Who has the Better Dictionary."
Your response was so vitriolic and insulting. Why are you such an angry person? Look, the meat of your point (I've removed most of the hateful bits) is fine and valid as to the history of marriage. But these things are not set in stone. In America, we do not use marriage or bloodlines to create ties between nations or to pass on the crown. Marriage has EVOLVED. Times changes. and we change with them.
Words evolve because of similarities to use. They do not negate their entire meaning to fit a new one.
There is no purpose to homosexuals being established by such. It does not fit them. Idioms have no place in legal definitions. We do not term good with cool or dope in legal terms because their use has no rational adaption to the definition.
Homosexuals do not fit the most basic core of the definition. Adding them would confuse legal process of understanding. With each adaption to unrelated definitions, our language falls into a position of confusion.
What is silly about this is that so much effort it being put into it to change a logical meaning to an illogical one when the options to achieve everything acceptable already exists. This is a servitude to emotional mobs and their individual self interest. There is nothing noble about this cause, nothing rational or logical. Their position is strictly emotionally similar to that of a child demanding their way in spite of all that exists.
Again, this is about the definition. Homosexuals do not fit the definition. Adding them to the list would invalidate the historical definition ultimately resulting in confusing the understanding of such. Civil unions meet a proper delineation by describing the relation as one that can never produce. Not because of choice, not because of a medical condition, but because it is a simple unquestionable fact of the issue.
Let us have intelligent conversation that is without devious motive, shall we?
From what I have gathered, you are also unable to explain it.
Really? what is it that I was unable to explain? The key points please, where is it I was lacking, more specifically in the last long post where I described reproduction and then historical relevance. Which parts ? Go on.
What age is a child and how can this be established as a general rule? I have met children that show far more capability of acting rationally as an adult than MANY of the adults I have met in my life.
My grandfather left home at age 13 to support himself. This was common during his time. My grandmother was married to my grandfather at age 15 and they had their first child at age 16. My grandfather served in WW2 at age 17 and had already experienced more responsibility by the time he was 18 then most 50 year old's today.
See the problem?
No, I don't see the problem. The brain is not fully developed until the age of ~ 25. Not your grandfather's or grandmother's. Children do all kinds of things to survive. The survival instinct does not lend to the ability to consent. Try again.
Really? what is it that I was unable to explain? The key points please, where is it I was lacking, more specifically in the last long post where I described reproduction and then historical relevance. Which parts ? Go on.
What I'd really like for you to explain for us is exactly when it was that you made the choice to become a heterosexual.
I think that answer will explain quite a lot about nature, humanity, and the DOMA in one succinct little package.
Words evolve because of similarities to use. They do not negate their entire meaning to fit a new one.
There is no purpose to homosexuals being established by such. It does not fit them. Idioms have no place in legal definitions. We do not term good with cool or dope in legal terms because their use has no rational adaption to the definition.
Their position is strictly emotionally similar to that of a child demanding their way in spite of all that exists.
Okay. I get your explanation of what marriage meant historically. Merriam-Webster offers several different definitions of marriage below.(sorry mod, i know we're not arguing dictionaries, i just have to address this!) One mentioned heterosexual union specifically, one mentioned homosexual union.
1 a(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially: the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities 3: an intimate or close union.
I do not understand why you insist that in allowing gay to marry, it's changing the definition. A marriage is the state of being united to another person. we'd just be extending that right to people who happen to be in love with someone of the samesex. what's the big deal? WHY marriage came about (and all your info about bloodlines etc) is fine and dandy, but that has to do with history, not the current state of things.
Until 1866 in this country, the definition of citizenship did not include slaves/former slaves. I'm sure there were people like you that argued til they were blue in the face against "changing" that definition to make black people citizens. Like I said, times change.
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.
