Gay Marriage and Other Stuff.

[75th]

Why is that amazing? It was to populate the earth.

"God" flip-flops a lot doesnt he?

 

[75th]

It's amazing you'd buy into a notion that something wasn't a sin, but is now suddenly a sin. And nothing really there to back it up. Although, that's not overly suprising either.

Interesting how "God's" word changes and conforms to the times we are living in. Seems like his rules change every other week depending on whats popular.

 

[Longhorn85]

Interesting how "God's" word changes and conforms to the times we are living in. Seems like his rules change every other week depending on whats popular.

You don't like change? So should marrige be redefined? (Getting back on topic)

 

[75th]

You don't like change? So should marrige be redefined? (Getting back on topic)

It doesnt have to be. And dont put words in my mouth.

From Websters:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

 

[sh4dowf4lcon]

And at the same time you'll degrade, name call and disrespect. That makes sense to me.

bluepeter=bluenuts (meant in a joking manner to illustarte my point)
SillySmallSexy=SSS (meant in a joking manner to illustrate my point)

I think both of those are obviously fun and "not attacking" or degrading.

To me you are silly and compared to me you are small, hey I left the sexy part in there

BTW, back to the animals...only one doe? lol Do deer get married or something? My point was males dont do males, and females dont lick females, not how many sex partners they have. You call yourself smart, but you fail to understand something simple as this? lol In some debates, I think silly would suit you better, are you degraded or offended? I think not.

 

[AAP]

You're pretty adept at putting words in my mouth. I never said those married must have children, although I do believe that our society is based on, and depends on, families built through marriage.

Sorry. Don't get all pissy because your own hypocritical statements are applied to others and you can't run away then.

You said marriage was based upon the grounds of reproduction. Or are you going to backtrack and deny saying that? Wouldn't be the first time. So if you can't reproduce, then you are basically violating the "sancticity" of marriage and it's whole concept (according to how you perceive a marriage to be). And since that is the correct viewpoint (according to you), we should revoke the marriages of all those who haven't produced offspring.

On the flip side of the arguement (but still making a mockery of your foolish statement), what about the people who reproduce OUTSIDE of marriage. Obviously, they are not following the "natural" guidelines of what marriage is about and not upholding the precious nature of it. What do about those people? Maybe kill them since they disobeyed God? That is what the Bible teaches in some of it's verses. Yeah... let's kill those people who reproduce while they aren't married. Of course, black communities would cry genocide then.....

 

[AAP]

Damn, how long did it take you come up with that one? Like I said, I've yet to see an original thought from you.

You haven't paid much attention at all then.


On the other hand, the only idea we see on the board you have are the typical Bush brainwashing concepts. You have been programmed to parrot his same hypocritical and narrowminded beliefs that roll off the White House toilet paper.

 

[AAP]

75th + Websters = Total ownage.


Damn.... 75th just left some scars on ya'll.

 

[Longhorn85]

It doesnt have to be. And dont put words in my mouth.

From Websters:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

What version are you reading? I'm looking at Webster's third new international version and it doesn't have your 2).

At any rate, I meant (as I'm sure you know), redefined per it's current meaning in law in the US

 

[Longhorn85]

I like this one from Webster: "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family"