Even the definition you posted is not definite --- it's very clear ... marriage includes homosexuals.
The word "Marry" has (regardless of your stance on religion) religious connotations is is one of the seven sacraments --- fuck the seven sacraments and those who would try to use religion to persecute homosexuals. the religious do not have a claim to marriage. On Jun 19, 9:39 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Plainol... You address ONLY the prurient point, not the actual facts > that make us all equal.... > > Even the definition you posted is not definite... it says "a person of > the same sex in a relationship "LIKE" that of a traditional marriage." > > Unions "LIKE" that of a traditional marriage (making Gays LEGALLY > equal) have been passed in several states and do meet your posted > definition yet as Keith points out the Gay community is not happy with > that... they demand that the state call it "Marriage"... this has > failed in 33 states and will continue to fail every time there is a > popular vote. > > The word "Marry" has (regardless of your stance on religion) religious > connotations is is one of the seven sacraments.... while most people > will say they don't care publicly they are like the proverbial atheist > in the foxhole.... they vote their culture and tradition and for what > they know to be a correct definition. > > Marriage is not about sex... regardless of what the Gay community > wants us to think... it IS about family and procreation (love is not a > requirement for these things). > > On Jun 19, 8:17 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that government has no business in marriage. > > --- > > then they should have no say in who gets married > > > the definition of marriage will not be > > changed based upon one's sexual behavior. > > --- > > it has already changed. > > Seehttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage > > Definition of MARRIAGE > > 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. > > > I predict that this whole movement will come > > back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections. > > Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of > > marriage > > will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see > > the > > military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and > > women in the service. > > --- > > a pipe dream > > > only the religious persecute gays. > > > On Jun 19, 3:35 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I agree that government has no business in marriage. > > > > As Mark rightfully and correctly stated, any man can marry anyone that he > > > so chooses, and any woman can marry anyone that she so chooses. Nothing > > > has changed in North Carolina, with the exception of North Carolinians, > > > like Floridians and something like 36 other states' citizenry, > > > have unequivocally made clear that the definition of marriage will not be > > > changed based upon one's sexual behavior. > > > > Plain Ol', you can try to spin it any way that you want, but the move by > > > the militant Gay Agenda, which is a part of the secularist movement > > > to revise American history, is not about discrimination. It's not > > > about equal rights. This movement/agenda is about secularists such as > > > yourself attempting to change the very morality of, and the fabric of our > > > Nation. To change the definition of marriage, and the Western/Christian > > > moral tenets that our Nation is based upon. Most Americans reject an > > > attempt to redefine the term marriage. > > > > Just to prove my point that this has nothing to do with equal rights or > > > discrimination: Assuming for a moment that a State > > > acknowledges homosexuals' privilege of "joining" as a couple, and giving > > > them the same status as heterosexual "married" couples was to affect a > > > class of people, (which it doesn't; again we have established that there > > > is no class of people, homosexuals are no different than you or I, and > > > only can be distinguished by their admission of what they do sexually) > > > then > > > this has been accomplished in a number of States, to include California, > > > New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, and a host of other States. Civil > > > Unions have been allowed in these States for a number of years. The > > > militant Gay Agenda, as well as secularists such as yourself, have not > > > been satisfied with "equal". Civil Unions were not good enough. No, > > > there was no happy medium, but only the change of the term "marriage" was > > > acceptable; the only purpose of which was to shove what many Americans > > > believe to be an immoral lifestyle and unnatural acts down our proverbial > > > throats. > > > > It's not going to happen, and I predict that this whole movement will come > > > back to hurt the Gay movement for acceptability and equal protections. > > > Those States who have approved and allowed for the redefinition of > > > marriage > > > will eventually change and strike these laws, as I think you will see the > > > military reverse it's recent determination to allow openly Gay men and > > > women in the service. > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > Plainol... Any man can marry any woman... It applies very equally to > > > > gays. > > > > > On Jun 18, 4:14 pm, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > homosexuals are still guaranteed those same > > > > > identical rights that you and I > > > > > --- > > > > > not true > > > > > they can't get married or receive spousal benefits ... for starters > > > > > > On Jun 18, 2:45 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > And today, as was three weeks ago before North Carolina voted to > > > > maintain > > > > > > the definition of marriage, homosexuals are still guaranteed those > > > > same > > > > > > identical rights that you and I have. Nothing's changed, other than > > > > North > > > > > > Carolina chose not to grant a certain group of people more rights > > > > > > than > > > > I > > > > > > have, or that you have, because of their behavior. > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM, plainolamerican > > > > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > North Carolina did nothing that was > > > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > > > > > against a > > > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > homosexuals are guaranteed the same protection as the religious > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > the blacks > > > > > > > > This was a > > > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > their beliefs, reliious or not, have no effects on the courts > > > > > > > decisions > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 11:11 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Well said Mark. > > > > > > > > > We've beat this issue to death, but one thing that I think > > > > > > > > writers > > > > such > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > Chris Bassil are missing, is that North Carolina did nothing > > > > > > > > that > > > > was > > > > > > > > discriminatory toward a class of people. This was not an action > > > > against > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > religious group, or a class of people such as blacks. This was > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > referendum against a certain behavior that the majority of North > > > > > > > > Carolinians find to be at odds with their beliefs. > > > > > > > > > At one time I was opposed to amending the Constitution to define > > > > > > > marriage. > > > > > > > > I see no other alternative. The militant Gays and those that > > > > > > > > have > > > > been > > > > > > > > brain washed into believing that this is some type of "right" > > > > need to be > > > > > > > > quashed and shut down on this issue. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:59 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is EXACTLY the reason the founders put in the 10th > > > > Amendment... > > > > > > > > > They were aware that each and every State had its' own moral > > > > compass > > > > > > > > > and would/should be able to to express that moral compass as > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > majority sees fit. New York can have the gays (etc) and give > > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > > whatever rights the State may offer while North Carolina is > > > > > > > > > well > > > > > > > > > within their right to deny them... the same is true of any > > > > > > > > > basic > > > > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 18, 9:51 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The Secession SolutionMonday, June 18, 2012 > > > > > > > > > > byChris Bassil > > > > > > > > > > Earlier this month,Amendment 1-- an amendment to the North > > > > Carolina > > > > > > > > > state constitution that precludes the state from recognizing > > > > > > > > > gay > > > > > > > marriage, > > > > > > > > > among various other kinds of domestic partnership -- was > > > > > > > > > passed > > > > by > > > > > > > voters. > > > > > > > > > Much has already been made of the bill's discriminatory > > > > > > > > > content, > > > > the > > > > > > > former > > > > > > > > > need to "vote against," and the current need for repeal, but > > > > much of > > > > > > > this > > > > > > > > > looks more like an exercise in missing the point than anything > > > > else. > > > > > > > > > > In the end, the problem with Amendment 1 is not so much that > > > > this > > > > > > > > > election was decided in one direction and not the other, but > > > > rather > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > > > live in a society content to employ statewide voting as a > > > > > > > > > means > > > > of > > > > > > > > > collective decision making in the first place. > > > > > > > > > > One of the problems with a statewide referendum on the issue > > > > of gay > > > > > > > > > marriage, or any domestic matter, is that it implicitly > > > > > > > > > assumes > > > > that > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > state -- as opposed to the county, city, neighborhood, place > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > business, > > > > > > > > > or any other pool of people -- is the appropriate unit for > > > > collective > > > > > > > > > decision making. It suggests that state > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
