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.
Guess you don't know many homosexuals. I've known lots of gay men and women who have had children. Many of them were married to someone of the opposite sex when they were younger.
It will be interesting to see the demographics from the US 2010 census.
45.6 percent of married heterosexual partners are raising children
43.1 percent of unmarried heterosexual partners are raising children
34.3 percent of female gay couples are raising children
22.3 percent of male gay couples are raising children
Its not marriage. Homosexuals do not create bloodlines, they do not create a family tree. They can never do such, ever. This is the definition of marriage, not love. Many marriages were arranged with disregard for love.
None of your points mean anything in terms of my argument. /shrug
Could you show us any definition in any dictionary that connects the 'creating of bloodlines' or the 'creating of a family tree' to marriage? Because neither the 1942 Consolidated Webster Multi-Pictured Encyclopedic Dictionary, the 1947 Webster's New American dictionary nor the 1983 Webster's Desk dictionary of the English Language even mention 'bloodlines' or 'family trees' in connection with the word 'marriage'. Nor does the online version of the current Webster's.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,153,627 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Emotional rant.
Sorry, you are wrong. Not because "I" say so, but because through the power of literacy it has been shown evident.
My position has been about the definition, attend to such without making up claims of my position that was not stated.
Think, don't feel.
How convienant for you (shrugs)
Considering the state of the world we live in, I would say (and many agree): we as human beings should be feeling more and combining that with our thinking.
But I'm sure you're too busy mulling over the semantics between marriage and civil union.
Location: Partisanship Is An Intellectual/Emotional Handicap
1,851 posts, read 2,153,627 times
Reputation: 1082
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV
Could you show us any definition in any dictionary that connects the 'creating of bloodlines' or the 'creating of a family tree' to marriage? Because neither the 1942 Consolidated Webster Multi-Pictured Encyclopedic Dictionary, the 1947 Webster's New American dictionary nor the 1983 Webster's Desk dictionary of the English Language even mention 'bloodlines' or 'family trees' in connection with the word 'marriage'. Nor does the online version of the current Webster's.
What, you don't have the Normander's Twisted Make It Up As You Go Along and Swear It's Written In Stone ....edition?
I'm neither a lefty, not a religious person, but I don't know why the lefties here are in favor of any state recognition of marriage? Nobody should have any benefits from marriage from the state. It's a religious institution. If you want to get married in your house of worship and be recongnized by your religion as married, fine, but the state should have no involvement, let alone not give people benefits for being married.
In some ways I do agree with you, but, having just applied for, not mine but my late husband's social security, I do have to disagree. For most of our nearly 30 year marriage, I stayed home to take care of our three children. If I were to collect my own SS, I would end up on the street with nothing in less than a year. With his, I'll be collecting almost twice as much as his employer has been paying me for the last 11 years even though that pension will now be gone. And the only reason I get to collect on his SS is because my marriage is recognized by the government.
What, you don't have the Normander's Twisted Make It Up As You Go Along and Swear It's Written In Stone ....edition?
Because that's where you'll find it
I knew it had to be somewhere.
Nomander, you seem to be good at telling people that disagree with you how there is no proof to back up what they are saying, yet here you are blowing a lot of hot air about bloodlines, with absolutely NO proof to back it up except some mumbo-jumbo about "the power of literacy has shown it evident, and other such fancily-worded bull. Do you have any actual proof to back up your words?
Oh, and saying something about "history has shown blahblahblah", or "the bible says" doesn't count.
Nope I don't care to shove my morals down anyone's throat then they would be living a lie if that is not what they wanted. I want a clean society where disgusting degenerates like homosexuals are not permitted.
Look again at what you said here, because you just contradicted yourself. You say you "don't want to shove your morals down anyone's throat", then you turn right around and attempt to do just that by saying homosexuals (homosexuality) should not be "permitted". That you consider homosexuals to be "disgusting degenerates" is a PART of your so-called morality! I find your "morals" to be disgusting and I'm not even gay!
Last edited by MsMcQ LV; 04-23-2010 at 11:22 AM..
Reason: added a forgotten word
Could you show us any definition in any dictionary that connects the 'creating of bloodlines' or the 'creating of a family tree' to marriage? Because neither the 1942 Consolidated Webster Multi-Pictured Encyclopedic Dictionary, the 1947 Webster's New American dictionary nor the 1983 Webster's Desk dictionary of the English Language even mention 'bloodlines' or 'family trees' in connection with the word 'marriage'. Nor does the online version of the current Webster's.
Post their entire definition of each and I will show you.
edit:
If you wish to play a game of "to the word" definitions in the face of historical relevance, I can easily shut you down right now.
marriage
n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities.
Dictionary reference without historical reference and support is meaningless. Many current dictionaries have already adapted for slang. One of the detriments of proper communication.
Considering the state of the world we live in, I would say (and many agree): we as human beings should be feeling more and combining that with our thinking.
But I'm sure you're too busy mulling over the semantics between marriage and civil union.
Emotional, fallacious, and irrelevant to context.
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.
