QuakerOats;1433480 wrote:Comical.

Why not develop new descriptors when a new phenomenom evolves, or are we too shallow to do so; hence we instead hijack an existing word and attempt to alter its definition to fit our political 'thinking'. Naw, doesn't really work that way.

sherm03;1433482 wrote:OK...let's say that this year there is a proposal on the ballot to legalize gay marriage. Would you personally vote to legalize it, or would you vote against it?

Gblock;1433484 wrote:laws change all the time..legal definitions especially...what is your point. human understanding and ways of thinking does too. i dont think/feel the same way about many things as i did when i was 15.

sherm03;1433485 wrote:Why have two words that mean the exact same thing when you can have one word?

It's amazing to me that people will say, "I have no problem with two gay people that are in a relationship living together, receiving legal benefits, receiving medical benefits...but don't you dare try to call that relationship a marriage. That's where I draw the line!" Do you realize how absolutely retarded that sounds?!

Con_Alma;1433487 wrote:Neither of those choices are my desire. I would rather the State get out of the marriage sanctioning business. I'll let those whom desire it be one way or another vote.

Con_Alma;1433488 wrote:Is this for me? If laws change then we follow the new on. They haven't changed yet. Maybe someday but not today as it relates to this issue.

sherm03;1433490 wrote:So you're saying that you don't want the State to recognize anyone as being married and would rather marriage strictly be a religious bond?

Gblock;1433491 wrote:the word still fits in my opinion were talking about whether to legalize gay "marriage". the comical part is the way that hetero sexuals stomp on the institution of marriage and have no respect for it. divorce is at an all-time high, but when gays want to get married,now the sactity of the word is important. even the definition of the word lol

Con_Alma;1433497 wrote:The word doesn't fit fom a legal perspective as we stand today if the gender is removed from the understanding of the definition. It may someday but it doesn't today.

Gblock;1433500 wrote:the legal perspective has no bearing on my view. whats right is right regardless of how long it takes the laws this country to catch up. ie. the treatment of women and blacks come to mind. there were lots of people who knew the proper definition of citizen, or who should be allowed to vote, or who should not be deemed as property before the laws recognized things. doesnt change the definition of what they are trying to do which is get "married" which would be defined as formalizing or legalizing said union

Gblock;1433500 wrote:the legal perspective has no bearing on my view. whats right is right regardless of how long it takes the laws this country to catch up. ie. the treatment of women and blacks come to mind. there were lots of people who knew the proper definition of citizen, or who should be allowed to vote, or who should not be deemed as property before the laws recognized things. doesnt change the definition of what they are trying to do which is get "married" which would be defined as formalizing or legalizing said union

cruiser_96;1433504 wrote:Is this based on how you view things? Or is there some sort of absolute right that we must all adhere to?

Gblock;1433503 wrote:i was talking about my view of the definition of marriage..not my personal stance on the issue

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1433510 wrote:Let's not lose sight of the fact that this woman knew she was taking a chance by signing the morality contract dishonestly. Dishonest because she knew that she was promising not to partake of certain activities while employed by the church. She put herself in the position to be one annonomous phone call away from termination.

An employee at Scotts - that forbids its employees to smoke entirely faces a similar situation. One can say that Scotts is unfair to regulate someones's life away from work. But the bottom line is if you disagree, you shouldn't work there.

Gblock;1433505 wrote:i dont care either way...i was just saying how laws change and whatever is "right" this week may not be "right" next week...we each have to decide. he seemed to be saying he was waiting for the law to decide if two gay people forming a union could be defined as a marriage. other states say yes, ohio says no. right or wrong i feel the definition fits...i really have no opinion if it is right or wrong because it doesnt effect me. marriage sux, let them learn the hard way i say

Gblock;1433505 wrote:... he seemed to be saying he was waiting for the law to decide if two gay people forming a union could be defined as a marriage. other states say yes, ohio says no. right or wrong i feel the definition fits...i really have no opinion if it is right or wrong because it doesnt effect me. marriage sux, let them learn the hard way i say

cruiser_96;1433537 wrote:Or a squid! I think squirting people with ink would be a cool ability. However, the advantages and use of 8 "arms" at once cannot be overstated.

Gblock;1433519 wrote:kinda like this guy from high school that i beat up after school one day. to this day he continues not to recognize the a$$ beating and still tells people that me and my friends jumped him.