"Scott, how is it bigotry when it's defined as "between a man and a woman." Always has been. Check the oxford dictionary. This isn't a matter of me interpreting it differently than its original intent. If we rewrite marriage to allow gay union, should we also rewrite it to accommodate polygamy? Should we also rewrite it allow for multiple couples in swinger relationships to have a single union? You'll no doubt say that's ridiculous, but why is it any different. If you are gay it's "the way you were born," well the urge to have multiple wives or group relationships may also be "the way you were born." I just don't think it should be changed."
Quote me a US legal document that holds any definition for the term marriage. The day that we base our laws on the Oxford Dictionary is the day that I move to Canada. You might want to look up the word "bigotry" in your dictionary, while your at it. and BTW: we're not rewriting marriage, that's a typical swerve in this argument. We're insisting that the federal and state governments recognize a legal union between people, marriage is a religious ceremony and only a religious ceremony with no legal standing. As far as polygamy, or "swingers" go, as long as everyone is a consenting adult I don't have a problem with it. What your suggesting is legislated morality and that is unconstitutional. Michael Grant [Modus IS] wrote: > David, I respect your opinion, however I still don't agree. I've tried to > rationalise and explain it and am man enough to admit that under scrutiny my > attempt at logic has flaws. However it doesn't change my feelings, logical > or not. > > Scott, how is it bigotry when it's defined as "between a man and a woman." > Always has been. Check the oxford dictionary. This isn't a matter of me > interpreting it differently than its original intent. If we rewrite marriage > to allow gay union, should we also rewrite it to accommodate polygamy? > Should we also rewrite it allow for multiple couples in swinger > relationships to have a single union? You'll no doubt say that's ridiculous, > but why is it any different. If you are gay it's "the way you were born," > well the urge to have multiple wives or group relationships may also be "the > way you were born." I just don't think it should be changed. > > Oh, and David in regards to "age old." You're splitting hairs here a bit. > The term "age" generally refers to a period of advancement. 1600-1800: The > age of enlightenment, 1750-1900: The industrial age, etc. So to say marriage > is age old is appropriate. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:13 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: the list > > But your social institution holds no legal standing.... > I'm straight, I'm married (twice). If David decides that he wants to > commit to his partner, call it what ever you like, it has absolutely no > bearing in any way shape or form what so ever on my commitment to my > wife, it doesn't lessen it, it doesn't cheapen it. nothing, zero, zilch, > nada. And there's no conceivable logical argument otherwise. > > The only thing that should have any bearing is that piece of paper that > we signed, which is a legally binding agreement to co-habitate. > This is bigotry plain and simple in a very thinly disguised wrapper. > > Michael Grant [Modus IS] wrote: > >> Um, as far as I know gays don't get paid less, don't have to use separate >> water fountains, ride the back of the bus etc. From my original post I >> stated I don't think gays should be persecuted. However I don't agree with >> rewriting the age old social institution under which a man and woman >> establish their decision to live as husband and wife. >> >> The end bit about donkeys and xbox's was obviously (or so I thought) >> tongue-in-cheek. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: David Churvis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:18 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE: the list >> >> G doesn't seem to be that type, but you have certainly shown yourself to >> > be > >> the type to compare someone's life-long struggle for equality to screwing >> > a > >> donkey, so... >> >> David Churvis >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Grant [Modus IS] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:27 PM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: RE: the list >> >> Try to follow along G, read the whole thread between Maureen and I. I >> > wonder > >> if you might be the type to enter in the middle of a conversation and >> > spout > >> the first thing that comes to mind. :( >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:27 AM >> To: cf-community >> Subject: Re: the list >> >> Who said anything about ironcald or unwavering? >> >> You said there is no benefit to be gained, I said there is....learning. >> >> I'm starting to think maybe you are only a troll :/ >> >> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Michael Grant [Modus IS] >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >> >> >>> So by having a viewpoint that is nothing more than a "placeholder" one >>> can't >>> reap the benefit of learning? I would say that if you look at the >>> > response > >>> my post has received, as well as the spinoff thread, my "placeholder" >>> > post > >>> has been a catalyst for learning. I submit that one does not need an >>> ironclad, unwavering opinion for it to have inherent value. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:30 AM >>> To: cf-community >>> Subject: Re: the list >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Michael Grant [Modus IS] >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> What benefit does anyone gain from posting on an opinion based forum, >>>> >>>> >>> other >>> >>> >>>> than a mild reprieve from the work-a-day world. >>>> So by posting what benefit did you gain Maureen? The former or the >>>> >>>> >>> latter? >>> >>> What benefit? Isn't it obvious? >>> >>> Learning! Not only about different viewpoints, but about how your >>> viewpoints >>> are seen and analyzed by others. If you view your opinions as nothing >>> >>> >> more >> >> >>> than placeholders.....you're probably on the wrong list. >>> >>> -- >>> Divine creation hears me >>> And it squashes me with fear >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:280906 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
