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.
Government should have no law regarding any type of "marriage". Any two people can have contracts drawn up or religious ceremonies if they want. The only reason we keep hearing this stupid argument is because stupid government got involved. There should not be any "special rights" or "punishments" or anything else regarding private associations.
I say no to "civil unions" and "marriages" as a government concern. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting individual liberty. We have contract law to deal with anyone who wants some sort of "legal" arrangement. Abolish all stupid "marriage laws"!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Post their entire definition of each and I will show you.
1. I'm not going to sit here and type out three definitions, especially when , unless you have the same books I do, you have no way to verify that I've done so accurately.
2. I asked YOU where I can find YOUR definition. Since the definition I normally use is the last one - go to Websters.com and read it for yourself. Now, can you give us a source for your definition, or is it as another poster said - you make it up as you go along?
Dictionary reference without historical reference and support is meaningless. Many current dictionaries have already adapted for slang. One of the detriments of proper communication.
Sorry, in the context of this discussion the legal definition is completely invalid. And even that doesn't come close to saying anything about bloodlines or family trees. We are talking of how PEOPLE define marriage FOR THEMSELVES.
Dictionary reference without historical reference and support is meaningless. Many current dictionaries have already adapted for slang. One of the detriments of proper communication.
Marriage vows are binding promises each partner in a couple makes to the other during a weddingceremony.
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
No where in these traditional wedding vows does it say go forth and continue your blood line. I see a promise to love, and honor no matter what. Why should the sex of the partners stand in the way of making such a vow and having it recognized as a legal binding ceremony?
Sorry, in the context of this discussion the legal definition is completely invalid. And even that doesn't come close to saying anything about bloodlines or family trees. We are talking of how PEOPLE define marriage FOR THEMSELVES.
Then why ignore the historical context? Why? Because you wish to manipulate a definition to serve idiomatic influence. People and their subjective influence to a definition do not change such. PEOPLE are stupid, bound to emotion, pushing for that which they desire and ignorant or self serving to that which they do. Your argument is invalid, your position is invalid, your attempt to manipulate such to your subjective means is noted.
Marriage vows are binding promises each partner in a couple makes to the other during a weddingceremony.
I, ____, take you, ____, to be my (husband/wife). I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life. I, ____, take you, ____, for my lawful (husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
No where in these traditional wedding vows does it say go forth and continue your blood line. I see a promise to love, and honor no matter what. Why should the sex of the partners stand in the way of making such a vow and having it recognized as a legal binding ceremony?
Irrelevant and ignorant to the issue, also sourced by improper means, idiomatic citations serving the ignorance of political and self serving influence.
Sorry, A pal network of argued subjective serving individual desires is not evidence of anything than mob influence.
Make a logical argument, properly supported by more than gaining mob rule.
Government should have no law regarding any type of "marriage". Any two people can have contracts drawn up or religious ceremonies if they want. The only reason we keep hearing this stupid argument is because stupid government got involved. There should not be any "special rights" or "punishments" or anything else regarding private associations.
I say no to "civil unions" and "marriages" as a government concern. It has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting individual liberty. We have contract law to deal with anyone who wants some sort of "legal" arrangement. Abolish all stupid "marriage laws"!
This is an argument of language. If it were one of rights, civil unions would suffice. Those seeking "marriage" as a means are simply emotionally driven to demand conformity, to adjust language to thier desire. If justice were sought, the issue would have been long solved. This is not an issue of those seeking to be left alone, left to live as they choose, this is a forced mandate of acceptance, a desperate plea for approval, it is a freak show looking for acceptance. Nothing more.
Then why ignore the historical context? Why? Because you wish to manipulate a definition to serve idiomatic influence. People and their subjective influence to a definition do not change such. PEOPLE are stupid, bound to emotion, pushing for that which they desire and ignorant or self serving to that which they do. Your argument is invalid, your position is invalid, your attempt to manipulate such to your subjective means is noted.
Look who's talking about "attempts to manipulate" the discussion! You are the one who keeps bringing "traditional definitions" and legal definitions and such into any and all discussions about the subject of same sex marriage. And yes, I can get very emotional about this because it hurts and just plain galls me that my friend Karl cannot marry the one person in the world he feels the same bond with that I felt with my husband.
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.
