Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley
and one other thing I do know for sure is that you consider abusive discourse to be the equivalent of intelligent discussion, I can assure you sir, that you are wrong about that.
|
I do not, but I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley
all that may be true however it doesn't change the definition of the word marriage: the union between and man and a woman. although this definition is being challenged at this time by the gay coalition.
I think gays and anyone else that wants to should be allowed to form civil union, however I'm not so sure they should be called marriages, that's all I'm saying  |
Why do you believe the definition can't be ammended, it obviously does not hold the same societal impact it once did. After all almost 50% of all marriages end in divorce and the legal definition did not originally support it yet it was amended and continues to be practiced.
"Marriage:
A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought io exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage...
...Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties."
Why do you believe gays should not be married, besides current definition and religious dogma?
__________________
"The towers are gone now, reduced to bloody rubble, along with all hopes for Peace in Our Time, in the United States or any other country. Make no mistake about it: We are At War now -- with somebody -- and we will stay At War with that mysterious Enemy for the rest of our lives." H.S.T. 09/12/01