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.
Re-labeling/re-defining is hardly irrelevant as it is the core method through which Progressives institute their agendas.
And what exactly is the opposite of "progressives?" Conservatives?? Actually, inflicting your own opinions or beliefs on others is actually not conservative at all. Conservative use to mean what we do in our home, or in our bedroom is nobody else's business but ours. The current definition of conservative is flawed, and should really be re-labelled "oppressionist" because it is these people who provoke their beliefs onto other people regardless of whether it affects them directly or not. Abortion is another example; if you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one.
Just read that in a banner sponsored by Minnesotans for Marriage.
It's certainly an interesting way of thinking of it.
In the U.S., marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
Should activists, and not the people, be able to re-define it any way they want?
It is not activists, it's the court system. And if you've been following the case regarding Proposition 8 in California; and if one is objective, and fairly intelligent, they will clearly understand that law had no basis, but to impugn an entire class of people in society.
If we had never re-defined marriage, it would still be an institution in which:
*Husbands could assert their 'conjugal rights' by raping their wives
*Married women could own no property
*Husband and wife must be of the same race
Any earlier modifications ALL still involved the exclusive and only requisite man / woman coupling combination component that has yet to be revised worldwide let alone universally accepted as valid.
Any earlier modifications ALL still involved the exclusive and only requisite man / woman coupling combination component that has yet to be revised worldwide let alone universally accepted as valid.
Right.
So the issue is not some principled opposition to the idea of changing the definition of marriage. It's just a narcissistic complaint that the definitions of marriage that you happen to like shouldn't be changed.
So the issue is not some principled opposition to the idea of changing the definition of marriage. It's just a narcissistic complaint that the definitions of marriage that you happen to like shouldn't be changed.
Well, get used to being disappointed ...
Wrong.
The issue as all about redefining the fundamental man / woman coupling combination that comprises marriage since before recorded history and devolving it into something else. The hard part is hoodwinking worldwide society into redefining itself just to accommodate 3% of the population.
In the U.S., marriage has always been between one man and one woman.
How long are same-sex-marriage opponents going to use this line? Will they still be saying it even after 30 or 40 states legalize same-sex marriage?
And as the earlier poster said - it's not "gay activists" who are redefining marriage. It's the courts and your elected officials. But nice try at vilifying gays - yet again.
How long are same-sex-marriage opponents going to use this line? Will they still be saying it even after 30 or 40 states legalize same-sex marriage?
And as the earlier poster said - it's not "gay activists" who are redefining marriage. It's the courts and your elected officials. But nice try at vilifying gays - yet again.
I was copying verbatim what I read in a banner ad, not making a statement or question on my own part.
And as for me personally, no, I don't think they should. Marriage according to the Natural Law is between a man and a woman, and if we deviate from the natural law, perilous moral consequences will follow. Just look at our society, with our high rate of divorce, our "hook-up" culture across college campuses nationally which cheapens men and as well as women, our total disregard for almost all sexual morality short of bestiality, incest, and pedophilia (and I feel that we will disregard even those norms). And you are saying that THIS society at THIS point should define marriage for itself?
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.
