Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 398
  1.    #81  
    Wasn't the ownership of people outlawed in this country a few years back? You are justifying yourself with out of date statements.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    You don't have an amendment.


    And when the people ruled for a race of people in this country could be owned, what then?
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Marriage is defined by tradition as the union of one man and one woman. In my dictionary,

    The state of being united as husband wife: conjugality, connubiality, matrimony, wedlock.

    The act or ceremony by which two people become husband and wife.

    Husband: a man joined to a woman in marriage; a male spouse.

    Wife: a woman joind to a man in marriage; a female spouse.

    It's right there. Male/female.

    Marriage

    --------------

    Civil union - from Wikipedia - it is a legal partnership agreement between two persons. They are typically created for same-sex couples with the purpose of granting them benefits that are found in marriage.


    I have not problems with a civil union. Ben

    ***************
    So you're ONLY hung up on the term 'marriage'. Oh well. Someone should have said something when they named those licenses 'marriage licenses' instead of 'civil union licenses'.
  3. #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Wasn't the ownership of people outlawed in this country a few years back? You are justifying yourself with out of date statements.

    Ben
    No I'm pointing out something known as precedent.

    The tyranny of the majority buffered by the Constitution.
  4.    #84  
    Very well put. In addition, I have and will continue to ask the question - where does he draw the line? He is advocating a "feel good society" and frankly, that sucks the big time. Feel good = do what you want with no regard for others. Make it okay to do anything, shoot up in the park, the list is endless.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The previous post did not address the issue. You feel there is a difference, the person who wants to have 3 wives may not see the difference. Why would you not consider multiple consenting partners the same as same sex consenting partners?
    In my opinon if we change the law to allow 2 men to marry, why not 4 consenting adults? It is their choice, you stated it would dissolve the privilages, how is it any different, now the 3 wives could not be forced to testify against the husband. I prefer to leave it as is as does the majority of the people and the courts.
  5.    #85  
    No I am not hung up on the term "marriage." I do not see a reason to change the accepted definition of "marriage."

    I was not aware there was a "civil union license." Wow, I learn something every day.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    So you're ONLY hung up on the term 'marriage'. Oh well. Someone should have said something when they named those licenses 'marriage licenses' instead of 'civil union licenses'.
  6.    #86  
    Hey, place this in multiple corners then, because this country does not practice the act - it is though practiced in other countries and some of those upon their own people.


    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    No I'm pointing out something known as precedent.

    The tyranny of the majority buffered by the Constitution.
  7. #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The previous post did not address the issue. You feel there is a difference, the person who wants to have 3 wives may not see the difference. Why would you not consider multiple consenting partners the same as same sex consenting partners?
    In my opinon if we change the law to allow 2 men to marry, why not 4 consenting adults? It is their choice, you stated it would dissolve the privilages, how is it any different, now the 3 wives could not be forced to testify against the husband. I prefer to leave it as is as does the majority of the people and the courts.
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc. So you can file that little diversionary arguement away under "pwned".
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Hey, place this in multiple corners then, because this country does not practice the act - it is though practiced in other countries and some of those upon their own people.


    Ben
    huh?
  9.    #89  
    Then let us have a bunch of laws regulating civil unions!!!! Yes! then let them go to the liberal judges to sort them out. What an idea!

    Mr. Thomas, are you a constitutional scholar? I definitely am not. Explain to me what is wrong with regularing civil unions?

    Ben
  10. #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Very well put. In addition, I have and will continue to ask the question - where does he draw the line? He is advocating a "feel good society" and frankly, that sucks the big time. Feel good = do what you want with no regard for others. Make it okay to do anything, shoot up in the park, the list is endless.

    Ben
    Gawd would you stop that. I am by no means arguing for a feel good society. My argument is based on the logic that a significant portion of society are denied equal right under the law.

    Simple. So put away your "feel good society" catch phrase please and argue the point.
  11.    #91  
    Sorry, I was briefly "babbling" about slavery.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    huh?
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Then let us have a bunch of laws regulating civil unions!!!! Yes! then let them go to the liberal judges to sort them out. What an idea!

    Mr. Thomas, are you a constitutional scholar? I definitely am not. Explain to me what is wrong with regularing civil unions?

    Ben
    Actually, if you took any states marriage license and put a sticky label over the word "marriage" that said "civil union", you would probably cover the issue of equal rights under the law. This is in fact what most other countries offer same-sex couples.
  13.    #93  
    Signifcant portion of society denied equal right under the law? How can it be a significant portion of society when the only way they can get their agenda going is to do it through the activist judicial guys and gals? How can a signification portion of society not get letimitate and meaningful gains through the legislative branch? I am very, very, very confused.

    And yes, "feel good" and "feel good society" is a very fitting term.

    I am getting no work done.

    Ben



    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Gawd would you stop that. I am by no means arguing for a feel good society. My argument is based on the logic that a significant portion of society are denied equal right under the law.

    Simple. So put away your "feel good society" catch phrase please and argue the point.
  14.    #94  
    Do you mean to say, "God would you stop that?"

    Ben


    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Gawd would you stop that.
  15. #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Please see prior post in this thread on marrying multiple partners in relation to this issue.
    I did. It didn't answer my question.
  16.    #96  
    No, but it was fun to read. Are you getting any work done? I am not.

    Gotta roll for a while.

    Ben

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I did. It didn't answer my question.
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger
    Are you getting any work done? I am not.

    Ben
    Ditto that!
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc. So you can file that little diversionary arguement away under "pwned".
    Those aren't things that couldn't be resolved. Furthermore, and more importantly, they aren't the reason we outlawed polygamy. SO I think the comparison still stands.
  19. #99  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    I did. It didn't answer my question.
    From above:
    The majority of marraige laws and privilages apply specifically to the exclusiveness of a couple. Under your scenario, multiple wives could disagree on medical decisions for their spouse etc etc.

    I'm out for a while. bclinger wore me out. (bwahahahahahaha)


  20.    #100  
    I may be committing pologamy - I am seriously considering putting a third Treo in the house, a Treo 700p! Now that will cause a stir. I have been a two Treo family for quite a while and now with a third......God help me!

    Gotta work. Ben
Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891015 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions