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.
Anytime someone is deemed "better" due to there occupation, something is wrong. Look up "House and Yard Negro Slaves".
They were still slaves, weren't they?
I never said they were "better" than anyone else... I only said they aren't civilians, just as military personnel killing an enemy is different from me randomly shooting somebody on US soil.
Bottom line: If you or anyone else decides to inflict violence upon another human being, for the SOLE reason of "I don't like their kind," you will be subject to arrest/prosecution - and deservedly so.
The reason a woman wore a wedding ring traditionally in the last few centuries and the man didn't was it developed from the practice of selling off daughters to good matches. Good matches meant that you got something out of it, not her or even the husband. They were often both barely past childhood anyway. The something would be hard cash, connections, a link up the social chain (a mix of one side getting the cash and the other a foot up the social chain being a very standard one), or linking two political allies. It had nothing to do with love, relationships, and the rest. The standard a centrury or so ago was if you kept the affair quiet then nobody cared, but people found others they wanted to be with anyway and as higher level society used arrainged marriages so much it got fitted back into society someway.
Today with double ring ceremonies, the meaning changed, but the wedding ring is still a symbol of possession.
If people want to get 'married', go to a church who will marry you. If people want the legal protections of 'marriage' and the legal ties of parenthood but don't want to, make it the duty of the state to give civil ceremonies which equal the legal side, including those protections for children born within the relationship (however it was arrainged, including adoption).
Nobody who wants to 'marry' will be denied since there will be a church somewhere which shares their views. Those who don't see a need to involve religion will have full rights. People can oppose gay marriage without being able to infringe on the rights under law of two people who wish to have a continuing relationship and be a family.
Given that 'traditional marriage' grew out of the selling of daughters and sons for parental gain, why should anyone claim it is sacroscant?
When marriage was not arranged, and 1 man and 1 woman were free to marry, under what ever circumstances that took place under, before rings were exchanged brooches like these were most often exchanged in western Europe.
Safe to assume you are a product of a two parent home. So you father raised you by teaching right from wrong by inflicting pain on you. And I'm sure that your father taught your mother to "know her place". And your upbringing is that you think it's OK to beat people up because you don't like their lifestyle and beating up gay men will change something you don't like.
Honestly?? I have to tell you, I don't think you got such a good deal from your hetrosexual parents. And if you do go out looking to beat someone up, I hope you get arrested and serve time in jail. And at the end of the day, you would be sitting in jail and changed absolutely nothing.
I was never arrested for murder. The idiot cops detained me at work because of something that I wrote.
I was fired because my employer believed the lies that the cops told them.
Without knowing all the details, I cannot say if they were justified or not... but pretending it was something threatening (i.e. "I'm going to blow up this place tomorrow"), they had to do their job and investigate. Sorry you got fired for something apparently innocent, but that doesn't change the fact that police have to do their due diligence. If a child wrote that about their school, wouldn't you want them to investigate the matter? Maybe he/she was kidding, but if they weren't, we would all be asking "where were the police/etc??" when they did shoot up the school.
Again, this is just a hypothetical example - not saying you threatened to blow up anything. But free speech does have limits, and is not free of all resulting consequences.
One must take care when using the phrase 'mentally ill'. There are millions out there who have a mental illness. But they may take meds or get therapy and work and have families and lead a functional life.
Yes, we must take care of liberals. What is Obamacare albout?
Without knowing all the details, I cannot say if they were justified or not... but pretending it was something threatening (i.e. "I'm going to blow up this place tomorrow"), they had to do their job and investigate. Sorry you got fired for something apparently innocent, but that doesn't change the fact that police have to do their due diligence. If a child wrote that about their school, wouldn't you want them to investigate the matter? Maybe he/she was kidding, but if they weren't, we would all be asking "where were the police/etc??" when they did shoot up the school.
Again, this is just a hypothetical example - not saying you threatened to blow up anything. But free speech does have limits, and is not free of all resulting consequences.
I was writing a fictional story about serial killing and accidentially left the manuscrapt at work.
It's definitely not sacrosanct in that it doesn't have to be kept the way it was in olden days, whereby the woman was given with a dowry or received a dowry (depending on the culture). It is a legal contract. It's secular law now and no one gets sold, everyone willingly enters into the contract. My future hubby and I are going to be joining one another socially, legally, and promise before the law to be one another's. We both love it, including the legality of it, that we're joining before the law. Why shouldn't gays have that?
Of course they should. I get irritated when people come out and say we should respect 'traditional' marriage as the best there ever was. Only in the last centrury has marriage for love, since you want to marry this person to be with them, been the norm. So often in addition to the why gays can't marry since its not according to their religion part, they are holding up this 'traditional' view of roles within too.
Maybe since there is no clear defination in a gay marriage of who is playing 'husband' and who is playing 'wife' and the roles tradition says should be, its considered that it can't be a good and proper marriage.
My friends who have been together for almost thirty years really do sound like an old married couple and would be recognizable as one to anyone. I sincerely hope that this hateful act in California, fully pushed and funded by religious interestes (especially Mormon) is removed and they can get a lisence and marry before they retire as they deserve it. Currently they plan to retire to a state they can legally marry. Shouldn't have to be that way.
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.
It's secular law now and no one gets sold, everyone willingly enters into the contract. 