Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize that feces isn't stored in the rectum for the long haul; people also know when it is there, so "poopy dick" can very easily be avoided.Simply put, if the person about to "take it" feels the need to shit, they shouldn't procede, unless they're German and are into that sort of thing.
ROFL CAKES!!!! 😆 😆 😆
You do know that I wasn't serious?
I understand what is meant by this proposal. There are Christians who will say that marriage is for a man and woman, and the purpose of marriage is to have children. If Christians truly believe this, they must live up to their beliefs, and have children.
I think the idea of this 'proposal' is to make Christians/Religious groups see how hypocritical they are when it comes to gay marriage.
Ok, I understand that the proposal was a nonsense proposal so that homosexual couples could prove their point in getting same-sex marriage legalized.
But on that same note, if you look up the definition of marriage in a dictionary, it clearly states that it is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Therefore, by definition same-sex couples do not qualify to get married. But they do qualify for civil unions, which gives them all the same rights as a married couple without the marriage title or wedding ceremony.
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given. By trying to change the laws, they are also indirectly trying to redefine what marriage is and always has been.
Originally posted by Sabrea
Ok, I understand that the proposal was a nonsense proposal so that homosexual couples could prove their point in getting same-sex marriage legalized.But on that same note, if you look up the definition of marriage in a dictionary, it clearly states that it is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Therefore, by definition same-sex couples do not qualify to get married. But they do qualify for civil unions, which gives them all the same rights as a married couple without the marriage title or wedding ceremony.
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given. By trying to change the laws, they are also indirectly trying to redefine what marriage is and always has been.
Those uppity negroes should be happy with the separate schools and drinking fountains that are so graciously given to them. The right to equal access to the same institutions as guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution of the United States clearly does not apply to coloreds.
Originally posted by Sabrea
Ok, I understand that the proposal was a nonsense proposal so that homosexual couples could prove their point in getting same-sex marriage legalized.But on that same note, if you look up the definition of marriage in a dictionary, it clearly states that it is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Therefore, by definition same-sex couples do not qualify to get married. But they do qualify for civil unions, which gives them all the same rights as a married couple without the marriage title or wedding ceremony.
Instead of attacking heterosexual couples, they should realize this and accept the civil unions they are given. By trying to change the laws, they are also indirectly trying to redefine what marriage is and always has been.
If civil unions gave the same rights and benefits, I doubt "same-sex marriage" would be an issue. Fact is, they give about 33% of the same rights and benefits as a marriage. If a law passed that gave women only 33% of the same rights as men, would you abide and be okay with it?
Trying to change the law isn't a bad thing, if any certain law is flawed and does not grant equality (as is case). As Adam_Poe noted, at one time, the law gave negroes less rights than non-negroes, should they have never been changed because "it's the law'?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Those uppity negroes should be happy with the separate schools and drinking fountains that are so graciously given to them. The right to equal access to the same institutions as guaranteed to all Americans by the Constitution of the United States clearly does not apply to coloreds.
Ok, if we're going to use historical documents now, let me quote the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Note where it says "men". Many people will argue that when they said "men" they meant all of mankind - but back in those days, they really didn't. They legitimately meant men, and only white men. So technically, our United States equalities should only apply to males. That isn't me being sarcastic either, the womens rights movement was one of the worst ideas that we've had.
And as a matter of fact, when the white Americans went to Africa and bought the slaves, we took them out of an even worse environment. The Africans were enslaving their own people, those with the darker skin were slaves and those with lighter skin were the owners. They treated them worse than Americans ever treated slaves. And by the time that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, those still in Africa were still being enslaved on a daily basis.
And again, I say - marriage is strictly stated to be a union between a man and a women. Not a women and a women, and not a man and a man. Civil unions on the other hand, can be between anyone. And as a matter of fact, marriage is a very religious thing in some places. Where I live you cannot get married in a church or by a priest unless you have done certain religious acts such as baptism and confirmation. And honestly, I know more straight people than gay people that are fighting for these rights. Most of the people fighting for gay rights are straight people who think they're doing a good deed by helping the gays. But on the other hand, most gays I know are absolutely fine with just civil unions and couldn't really care any less if they're permitted the right to marriage or not.
So don't think I'm just bashing gay rights, technically all movements to give rights have been out of place and shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You know, I suspect that comment may take things of fon a horrible tangent, so I am beseeching people to concentrate more on the issue at hand.For example:
Sabrea- meanings change. Does it really matter that much what marriage has traditionally referred to?
I love how you pick on me and use me as your example, most likely because you clearly know where I would end up going 🙂
As far as "does it really matter", it does. Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions. When things change the meanings behind them are lost. Just because the gay community thinks we should change the laws, doesn't mean we should. Would you argue for polygamists that they have the right to marry whoever they want?
Originally posted by Sabrea
Ok, if we're going to use historical documents now, let me quote the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."Note where it says "men". Many people will argue that when they said "men" they meant all of mankind - but back in those days, they really didn't. They legitimately meant men, and only white men. So technically, our United States equalities should only apply to males. That isn't me being sarcastic either, the womens rights movement was one of the worst ideas that we've had.
And as a matter of fact, when the white Americans went to Africa and bought the slaves, we took them out of an even worse environment. The Africans were enslaving their own people, those with the darker skin were slaves and those with lighter skin were the owners. They treated them worse than Americans ever treated slaves. And by the time that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves, those still in Africa were still being enslaved on a daily basis.
And again, I say - marriage is strictly stated to be a union between a man and a women. Not a women and a women, and not a man and a man. Civil unions on the other hand, can be between anyone. And as a matter of fact, marriage is a very religious thing in some places. Where I live you cannot get married in a church or by a priest unless you have done certain religious acts such as baptism and confirmation. And honestly, I know more straight people than gay people that are fighting for these rights. Most of the people fighting for gay rights are straight people who think they're doing a good deed by helping the gays. But on the other hand, most gays I know are absolutely fine with just civil unions and couldn't really care any less if they're permitted the right to marriage or not.
So don't think I'm just bashing gay rights, technically all movements to give rights have been out of place and shouldn't have happened in the first place.
So white men should be in control, negroes should still be slaves and women should be subservient to their fathers or husbands. Got it.
Originally posted by Sabrea
I love how you pick on me and use me as your example, most likely because you clearly know where I would end up going 🙂As far as "does it really matter", it does. Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions. When things change the meanings behind them are lost. Just because the gay community thinks we should change the laws, doesn't mean we should. Would you argue for polygamists that they have the right to marry whoever they want?
Repeat:
Because civil unions do not offer the same rights, which part of that don't you inderstand? If they did, I doubt gay-marriage would be an issue.
If marriage is such a religious thing, why does the state and not the church make it legal?
Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat:
Because civil unions do not offer the same rights, which part of that don't you inderstand? If they did, I doubt gay-marriage would be an issue.If marriage is such a religious thing, why does the state and not the church make it legal?
Yesssss, good job reading what I said. If you go re-read it instead of skimming over it you will see where I said they "SHOULD" be able to get the same rights with civil unions.
Originally posted by Sabrea
I love how you pick on me and use me as your example, most likely because you clearly know where I would end up going 🙂As far as "does it really matter", it does. Most homosexual couples don't want to fight for marriage, they want to fight for rights. And that's fine, they should be able to get those rights through civil unions. When things change the meanings behind them are lost. Just because the gay community thinks we should change the laws, doesn't mean we should. Would you argue for polygamists that they have the right to marry whoever they want?
Well, meanings have always changed- just look at 'Democracy'.
But words also have power. The word 'marriage' carries with it notions of respectability and civilisation thaty are somewhat beyond the purely religious meaning- and in a way that the term 'civil union' really does not, whether it gave the same rights or otherwise.
So would it really be so bad if the definition of marriage expanded?
Originally posted by Sabrea
Yesssss, good job reading what I said. If you go re-read it instead of skimming over it you will see where I said they "SHOULD" be able to get the same rights with civil unions.
I read every word, you said:
Originally posted by Sabrea
But they do qualify for civil unions, which gives them all the same rights as a married couple without the marriage title or wedding ceremony.
There is no "should give", you were ignorant on what civil unions bestow and are trying to cover your ass now.