Posted by tecwrg on 6/18/2013 10:24:00 PM (view original):
Of course it's stupid.  

I was wondering why you were going there, until I remembered that it's you.

We can compare interracial and gay marriage, but they should be framed within the context of when they went to the Supreme Court. 1967 for interracial marriage and 2013 for gay marriage. There is no rule that you can only compare them at the same year.

Are we back to this?  The 1967 decision did not change the basic definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    Not a precedent and not really comparable.

But let's go back to this:
"Offense is not harm"

The grown men are peppering a lone small black child with racial insults.    Pretty offensive but not harmful, right?    After all, the kid is only having to see/hear things he's been taught as wrong.   But as "offense is not harm", he's not harmed, right?

He's not interested in truth, or in arguments that make sense.

He knows his truth.  

BL is only interested in spreading the homosexual agenda.

Oh, wait, he says the homosexual agenda doesn't exist. Just like we all don't exist and really live in the Matrix, LOL.

Or maybe he's just against the religious agenda.

Not everyone has a religious agenda. 

At the end of the day, I ask "Does SSM make society better?"   Thus far, no one has convinced me that it does.   "Live life like they want to" doesn't work for me.    Too many examples of that motto, that do not violate laws, just aren't good.

"Marriage", to me, has a very specific connotation.  It means man/woman, bride/groom, husband/wife, etc.

There is nothing religious about that.

There is absolutely no reason why that connotation HAS to change to appease a group of people.

I've stated way back in the beginning of this thread that I'm all for civil unions with all the same legal benefits as marriage.  But just don't call it marriage, because it's not. 

Just because something doesn't fit a definition means that you have to change the definition until it does fit.  That's just stupid.

I agree there is no reason why the connotation of marriage needs to change just to appease the homosexuals and those who support the homosexual agenda.

The religious agenda has done a helluva job over the last 2000 years.

Maybe but that's not necessarily the reason others aren't jumping on the SSM bandwagon.

I agree some people have a religious agenda and those people have certainly changed the course of  history.

However, not everyone who is openly against the homosexual agenda feels the way they do for religious reasons. In fact, you have several people in this topic telling you they feel the way they do for other reasons.

I have no doubt they believe that.

If you're accusing me of being religious, congrats.   You're the first. 

My wife thought I was an athiest until I 6th-7th year of marriage.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/19/2013 7:59:00 AM (view original):
Are we back to this?  The 1967 decision did not change the basic definition of marriage of "one man, one woman".    Not a precedent and not really comparable.

But let's go back to this:
"Offense is not harm"

The grown men are peppering a lone small black child with racial insults.    Pretty offensive but not harmful, right?    After all, the kid is only having to see/hear things he's been taught as wrong.   But as "offense is not harm", he's not harmed, right?

But it did change the definition of marriage. So it's relevant.

I think that child would be harmed. Allow me to revise, offense isn't necessarily harm. That kid is being bullied at a young age by adults. That's abuse and we know that it is harmful in ways that go beyond offense. Please show how people are harmed by being offended by gay marriage.