What is marriage?

[EXman]

Conjur can you find another dictionary where it says man and woman only? Sure you can, we all can. Pops a hole in that difinition you quoted.

more attacks from the homosexual lover! I'm shocked! I love pulling your chain it is sooo easy. Your just mad cause you cannot explain why after thousands of years San Fransisco and it's criminal Mayor and Gay judge decided they can pick and choose the laws that are ok for them to follow even though the liberal voters in thier own state have spoken (prop 22). Stop whining Discrimination Discrimination

and just go about your business.

Bali man you just hate Bushies? Hate is a strong word. Why do hate?

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: EXman
I cite common sense and thousands of years of history. Legality or not if we were ment to like our own gender none of us would be here. For thousands of years this has been the the almost exclusive way why change anything for some whiners that want to cheapen the term marriage. Why the fvck can't they just leave it alone. Really this is going to make more people hate homosexuals. You libs brand them homophobes but really that is retarded. They just don't like gays. Most people don't like neo-nazis but it is not because they are neo-naziphobic they just don't like them. Definition of Homophobia

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

People can not like homosexuals without being afraid of them. Do you get it now?

Do you even read your own posts?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

moonie - I think you need to clean that mirror you tote around
You going around yapping "bigot" and "homophobe" is infact arrogant because you don't seem to want to understand where the other person is coming from with their opinion(pretty open minded of you - no?). Just slap up the bigot label for people so you don't have to think about what they are saying It goes both ways with this moonie -the sooner you figure that out - the sooner your mirror reflects true.

Have a nice "tolerant" day

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EXman
Conjur can you find another dictionary where it says man and woman only? Sure you can, we all can. Pops a hole in that difinition you quoted.

more attacks from the homosexual lover! I'm shocked! I love pulling your chain it is sooo easy. Your just mad cause you cannot explain why after thousands of years San Fransisco and it's criminal Mayor and Gay judge decided they can pick and choose the laws that are ok for them to follow even though the liberal voters in thier own state have spoken (prop 22). Stop whining Discrimination Discrimination

and just go about your business.

Bali man you just hate Bushies? Hate is a strong word. Why do hate?

Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the current sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

 

[EXman]

It's not worth it CaD he's just as intolerant as I am and even more so and it kills him. All he can do is attack. Without reasoning. I swear his blood pressure goes up everytime he sees me post.

Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the current sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

what you should have said was "Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the RELIGIOUS sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: EXman
It's not worth it CaD he's just as intolerant as I am and even more so and it kills him. All he can do is attack. Without reasoning. I swear his blood pressure goes up everytime he sees me post.

Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the current sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

what you should have said was "Conjur provided a little history regarding Marriage, it would seem that Marriage, in the RELIGIOUS sense, is rather new approx 500 years.

Oh, I'm not worried about moonie - it's fun messing with him/her every once in a while though. It's really entertaining when you can use his/her own tactics and sayings in response to him. He/she's a dodger - that's for sure.

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

I dreamt of endless hours of sex

HAHAHAHAHA.
reminds me of that post where some young fool asked if people were "waiting" to have sex until after they were married...
i responded that he would be "waiting to have sex" after he was married as well....HAHAHHA

old joke..
groom walks down the wedding aisle thinking "Great!, now I can have sex whenever I want!"
bride walks down the wedding aisle thinking "Great, now I can have sex only when I want to"

the gay's are pushing the marriage issue not because they really want to get married in droves (Heck, straight guys don't want to get married that bad!)..they are really (imo) seeking respect and acceptance from the general public...the problem is that you can't mandate respect and acceptance...

 

[kage69]

Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. The pair bond predates both law and religion. Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do.


On a somewhat unrelated note, I just got engaged.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman
Conjur can you find another dictionary where it says man and woman only? Sure you can, we all can. Pops a hole in that difinition you quoted.

more attacks from the homosexual lover! I'm shocked! I love pulling your chain it is sooo easy. Your just mad cause you cannot explain why after thousands of years San Fransisco and it's criminal Mayor and Gay judge decided they can pick and choose the laws that are ok for them to follow even though the liberal voters in thier own state have spoken (prop 22). Stop whining Discrimination Discrimination

and just go about your business.

That's a bit ironic, eh? You preach I should go about my business yet you seek to impose *your* beliefs upon others.


And, btw, the definition I posted is from Merriam-Webster. Pretty much the standard dictionary. Also, how was my posting of the definition of marriage an attack?

2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

Not my fault you're a bigot.

 

[heartsurgeon]

I've seen gay couples exude far more

Yeech.....

 

[EXman]

Not my fault you're a bigot.

again name calling... why cause I do not agree with you? Because I am intolerant of the gay agenda? Are you tolerant of the MAJORITY of the California and US citizens? Nope. Who's right? Do we have the right to our opinion?

I don't care what you believe. Really I do not. I'm not push my views on anyone but other than a few people here this hell hole know as the P & N forum might as well be called the Intolerant towards Religious, Traditional, and Moral Majority forum.

Don't name call unless you can judge yourself by the same standards.

the gay's are pushing the marriage issue not because they really want to get married in droves (Heck, straight guys don't want to get married that bad!)..they are really (imo) seeking respect and acceptance from the general public...the problem is that you can't mandate respect and acceptance...

yea what he said. I don't Agree with HS on many things but that is well put.

Also, how was my posting of the definition of marriage an attack?

nope I was talking to Sunbeam. But implying I'm a bigot kinda crossed the line on that So the Dictionary's meaning before where it was a man and a women was just plain wrong? Or were they influenced to change it come on now don't be so gullible.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: EXman

Not my fault you're a bigot.

again name calling... why cause I do not agree with you? Because I am intolerant of the gay agenda? Are you tolerant of the MAJORITY of the California and US citizens? Nope. Who's right? Do we have the right to our opinion?

I don't care what you believe. Really I do not. I'm not push my views on anyone but other than a few people here this hell hole know as the P & N forum might as well be called the Intolerant towards Religious, Traditional, and Moral Majority forum.

Don't name call unless you can judge yourself by the same standards.

Guess I have to spell it out for you:

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices


And, in case you're unsure of the meaning of the word prejudice:

Main Entry: 1prej·u·dice
Pronunciation: 'pre-j&-d&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin praejudicium previous judgment, damage, from prae- + judicium judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
1 : injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims
2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : [b[]an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics[/b]




Hence, you're a bigot.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack
I don't think the term marriage should have ever been used in a legal context, it was a huge mistake sharing terminology used by religious factions....

the legal aspect for everyone is more of a "union" of two people....

Let's start with the word origin:

Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry


And, now the definition:

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 <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>



Continue.....

And here is a stark contrast....

By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union. Under the Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments.

as taken from:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

Like I said before conjur, you are citing a definition that can only focus on the legal terminology, however "marriage" has a duality to it, so for every "factual" reference you can cite to marriage, I can cite and equal number of "religious" ones....

Seperate Church and State, make legal Union for all and give Marriage to religion. Easier to change legal documents than scripture IMHO.

 

[kage69]

Yeech.....

It figures you'd do that to a partial quote. Shouldn't you be out on some sidewalk picketing any and all things liberal?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: kage69
Marriage is civilization's endorsement of the pair bond. The pair bond predates both law and religion. Neither can claim to have the final say on what constitutes a "real marriage." By it's very nature, it carries with it an undeniable, intrinsic quality - the goal of reproduction. For obvious reasons, this requires the union to consist of a man and a woman. I'm sorry to say this is the one thing I can't support my gay friends in, as much as I would like to. I've seen gay couples exude far more consideration, love, and fidelity than many hetero couples, but supporting gay marriage (even though I'm liberal) would mean me having to turn a blind eye to nature. As much as it pains me to say it, that I cannot do.


On a somewhat unrelated note, I just got engaged.

one more reason why I think artificial insemination should be banned until all children from social services have found homes....I know too many couples, gay and straight that don't even consider adoption once they are married, instead they head straight for the infertility clinic....another byproduct of our "gotta have it new" mentality. I have no problem with same sex couples caring for a child, however I do take issue when they will only consider insemination...here you have a pair who knowingly entered into a relationship were procreation was not physically possible without the assistance of science, at least with infertile couples of opposite sexes they could argue they had no idea of their infertility.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

And here is a stark contrast....

By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes religious features, although the religious element is not always regarded as necessary to the validity of the union. Under the Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments.

as taken from:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09693a.htm

Like I said before conjur, you are citing a definition that can only focus on the legal terminology, however "marriage" has a duality to it, so for every "factual" reference you can cite to marriage, I can cite and equal number of "religious" ones....

Seperate Church and State, make legal Union for all and give Marriage to religion. Easier to change legal documents than scripture IMHO.

Sure, pull a "definition" off of a Christian website and of course you won't find any reference to a legal definition.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

one more reason why I think artificial insemination should be banned until all children from social services have found homes....I know too many couples, gay and straight that don't even consider adoption once they are married, instead they head straight for the infertility clinic....another byproduct of our "gotta have it new" mentality. I have no problem with same sex couples caring for a child, however I do take issue when they will only consider insemination...here you have a pair who knowingly entered into a relationship were procreation was not physically possible without the assistance of science, at least with infertile couples of opposite sexes they could argue they had no idea of their infertility.

Wow....just.....wow.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just putting on a show for everyone up here?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

one more reason why I think artificial insemination should be banned until all children from social services have found homes....I know too many couples, gay and straight that don't even consider adoption once they are married, instead they head straight for the infertility clinic....another byproduct of our "gotta have it new" mentality. I have no problem with same sex couples caring for a child, however I do take issue when they will only consider insemination...here you have a pair who knowingly entered into a relationship were procreation was not physically possible without the assistance of science, at least with infertile couples of opposite sexes they could argue they had no idea of their infertility.

Wow....just.....wow.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just putting on a show for everyone up here?

So you are saying you don't believe in adoption? or that you think people shouldn't be encouraged to adopt but instead continue to overpopulate even if they enter into a relationship knowing full well that biologically they did not posess the ability to reproduce??

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Sure, pull a "definition" off of a Christian website and of course you won't find any reference to a legal definition.

You cite a definition that deals with the legal, I cite a definition that deals with the religious, as I have said numerous times the word marriage applies to two very different things when truly it shouldn't....

how is my definition any less accurate than yours when put in proper context?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

one more reason why I think artificial insemination should be banned until all children from social services have found homes....I know too many couples, gay and straight that don't even consider adoption once they are married, instead they head straight for the infertility clinic....another byproduct of our "gotta have it new" mentality. I have no problem with same sex couples caring for a child, however I do take issue when they will only consider insemination...here you have a pair who knowingly entered into a relationship were procreation was not physically possible without the assistance of science, at least with infertile couples of opposite sexes they could argue they had no idea of their infertility.

Wow....just.....wow.

Are you really this ignorant or are you just putting on a show for everyone up here?

So you are saying you don't believe in adoption? or that you think people shouldn't be encouraged to adopt but instead continue to overpopulate even if they enter into a relationship knowing full well that biologically they did not posess the ability to reproduce??

Well, I can't say I'm surprised you'd take a knee-jerk, head-in-the-sand stance.

Many people want a child of their own. That's a big reason why people get together in the first place. They want something of themselves as a product of their love. They also like to carry on the family line. To force people to adopt and spend thousands of dollars and wait interminable periods and go through umpteen background checks (hmm...well...that one's not a bad idea for ANY parent ) is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm at a loss for words.

Do you not realize that some children awaiting adoption are troubled children? That it's more common for a child of a different race to available more readily to a couple? Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race.

 

[fjord]

Well it seems that tolerance is something everyone is in agreement with.

Tolerate point of view X, Y, Z, etc.

I can live with that.

So I guess a constitutional ban on X, Y, and Z, etc. is a no-go.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur

Sure, pull a "definition" off of a Christian website and of course you won't find any reference to a legal definition.

You cite a definition that deals with the legal, I cite a definition that deals with the religious, as I have said numerous times the word marriage applies to two very different things when truly it shouldn't....

how is my definition any less accurate than yours when put in proper context?

I cite a definition that is the STANDARD definition. Since when are dictionaries not a reflection of society's use of language?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
Many people want a child of their own. That's a big reason why people get together in the first place. They want something of themselves as a product of their love. They also like to carry on the family line. To force people to adopt and spend thousands of dollars and wait interminable periods and go through umpteen background checks (hmm...well...that one's not a bad idea for ANY parent ) is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm at a loss for words.

Do you not realize that some children awaiting adoption are troubled children? That it's more common for a child of a different race to available more readily to a couple? Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race.

Possibly the most ignorant and uncaring thing I have read in my time here conjur....however given your stance on issues I am not surprised....

So you are saying that people have a *right* to artifically manufacture their *own* children, even when biologically they cannot, and perfectly good children, or children that might need a little help should be discarded or left in social services....

I feel anyone considering procreation should have to go through the background checks, why it is limited to adoptions IMHO is beyond me....why is it rediculous to make people wait long periods of time and spend thousands before they are considered for a child? if anything that makes FAR MORE SENSE than our current system of just letting anyone knock their partner up and then dump or abort the children. heck I am almost at the point where I would favor vasectomies at birth and only after passing rigerous screening and paying large taxes should the process reversed....not to mention that artificial insemination is by no mean cheap, and in many cases would cost more than following through with the adoption process, the only difference is it is quicker and not nearly as regulated, both of which IMHO are bad things.

I do feel people should be forced to adopt as a first line option, as like you said, people are too greedy and self centered so they only care about having what is theirs....

also pretty ironic that someone clammoring for tolerance then goes on to say something as utterly stupid as this:

"Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race"

as if either is the case, then IMHO these people aren't fit to be parents in the first place..


your ignorance never ceases to amaze me conjur.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur

Sure, pull a "definition" off of a Christian website and of course you won't find any reference to a legal definition.

You cite a definition that deals with the legal, I cite a definition that deals with the religious, as I have said numerous times the word marriage applies to two very different things when truly it shouldn't....

how is my definition any less accurate than yours when put in proper context?

I cite a definition that is the STANDARD definition. Since when are dictionaries not a reflection of society's use of language?

so merriam webster or whatever is the STANDARD for everything, please...you cited the Standard dictionary definition whereas I cited the Standard religious definiton...again, it has to be in context both with the terminology and the useage.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: conjur
Many people want a child of their own. That's a big reason why people get together in the first place. They want something of themselves as a product of their love. They also like to carry on the family line. To force people to adopt and spend thousands of dollars and wait interminable periods and go through umpteen background checks (hmm...well...that one's not a bad idea for ANY parent ) is so far beyond ridiculous that I'm at a loss for words.

Do you not realize that some children awaiting adoption are troubled children? That it's more common for a child of a different race to available more readily to a couple? Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race.

Possibly the most ignorant and uncaring thing I have read in my time here conjur....however given your stance on issues I am not surprised....

So you are saying that people have a *right* to artifically manufacture their *own* children, even when biologically they cannot, and perfectly good children, or children that might need a little help should be discarded or left in social services....

I feel anyone considering procreation should have to go through the background checks, why it is limited to adoptions IMHO is beyond me....

I do feel people should be forced to adopt as a first line option, as like you said, people are too greedy and self centered so they only care about having what is theirs....

Stop putting words into my mouth. That is NOT what I said. :|

also pretty ironic that someone clammoring for tolerance then goes on to say something as utterly stupid as this:

"Perhaps most people aren't capable or willing of putting up with a troubled child or raising a child of another race"

as if either is the case, then IMHO these people aren't fit to be parents in the first place..


your ignorance never ceases to amaze me conjur.

I, for one, would seek to have a child of my own via artificial insemination if it came down to that.

You've obviously never had children and I sure as hell hope you never do. We don't need you breeding and teaching your hatred and intolerance to a new generation.