Women Plans to Marry Pet Dog

[rockmom]

Women and blacks have proven to have intellectual capability, thus earning the right to vote. Until horses can effectively communicate to humans that they can think deeply about hot political issues in the same way humans can, then they will not be voting.

 

That cracks me up! :lol2: Women and blacks had to prove they had intellectual capability. White men are presumed to have always had intellectual capability and are the group who apparently determined that women and blacks had proven their intellectual capability. :lol2:

[rockmom]

@Jim Schue , that is the point I have been waiting on all this time.

 

They are capable of love. But not love the same way a man and a woman can love. What's the difference? Can gay people love each other enough to create another life?

 

Since when do people marry with the primary intent to procreate?

[ColonelCrazy]

Completely different. Voting has to do with intellectual capability. Marriage, nowadays it seems, has to do with love and only love, which animals are capable of.

 

Voting is a right -- it has nothing to do with intellectual capability.

[UKMustangFan]

That cracks me up! :lol2: Women and blacks had to prove they had intellectual capability. White men are presumed to have always had intellectual capability and are the group who apparently determined that women and blacks had proven their intellectual capability. :lol2:

 

:lol2: Exactly. I don't think he realized how bad that post sounds.

[InItToWinIt]

Y

I think we have plenty of people creating life on this planet so who cares if 2 gay people want to love each other and pass on procreating?

 

I have no problem with that. Just don't call it marriage.

[UKMustangFan]

Y

 

I have no problem with that. Just don't call it marriage.

 

Why? It's just a word.

[InItToWinIt]

That cracks me up! :lol2: Women and blacks had to prove they had intellectual capability. White men are presumed to have always had intellectual capability and are the group who apparently determined that women and blacks had proven their intellectual capability. :lol2:

 

 

Okay, so one day white men just decided to give women and blacks the right to vote? No. Obviously looking back you and me know that women and blacks have always deserved the right to vote, but the selfish, controlling white men of the 20th century needed to be convinced that women and blacks deserved the same right. How did women and blacks earn the right? They showed the white men that they [women/blacks] were just as smart as the men.

[InItToWinIt]

Why? It's just a word.

 

It is, well supposed to be, much more than "just a word." Marriage is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring." (CCC 1601)

 

Saying "its just a word" is like saying any racial slur (N-word, F-word, etc.) is just a word. Obviously those words have historical meaning and connotations. I am saying that marriage has an important historical meaning and connotation as well.

 

Perhaps this goes without saying, but you and I might as well agree to disagree. I honestly do respect that you respond with valid questions and make me think deeper about my beliefs, but we are both pretty set on what we believe it seems.

[UKMustangFan]

That's not the definition of marriage.

 

This has nothing to do with religion or religious definitions. It's about extending the same basic human rights to everyone. Why are you against treating homosexuals as equals?

[InItToWinIt]

That's not the definition of marriage.

 

This has nothing to do with religion or religious definitions. It's about extending the same basic human rights to everyone. Why are you against treating homosexuals as equals?

 

Treating as equals? The only way in which humans are equal is that we are all sinners and we are all loved by God.

 

We are different - and that is a good thing. I am different than you but no better.

 

Here is our fundamental disagreement - I think marriage is a God-given right reserved for men and women together. Gays, like everyone else in this world, do deserve basic human rights.

[ColonelCrazy]

It is, well supposed to be, much more than "just a word." Marriage is a "covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring." (CCC 1601)

 

Saying "its just a word" is like saying any racial slur (N-word, F-word, etc.) is just a word. Obviously those words have historical meaning and connotations. I am saying that marriage has an important historical meaning and connotation as well.

 

Perhaps this goes without saying, but you and I might as well agree to disagree. I honestly do respect that you respond with valid questions and make me think deeper about my beliefs, but we are both pretty set on what we believe it seems.

 

The legal definition of marriage is not the same as the Catholic church's definition of marriage, or the Sacrament of Matrimony. There is a distinction...

[UKMustangFan]

Treating as equals? The only way in which humans are equal is that we are all sinners and we are all loved by God.

 

We are different - and that is a good thing. I am different than you but no better.

 

Here is our fundamental disagreement - I think marriage is a God-given right reserved for men and women together. Gays, like everyone else in this world, do deserve basic human rights.

 

This has nothing to do with religion. Not sure why you aren't getting that. Churches do not have to recognize same-sex marriages even with the SC ruling.

 

What it does do is allow those in same-sex relationships to receive equal benefits and rights. The fact that anyone is against that is simply mind-boggling to me.

[InItToWinIt]

This has nothing to do with religion. Not sure why you aren't getting that. Churches do not have to recognize same-sex marriages even with the SC ruling.

 

What it does do is allow those in same-sex relationships to receive equal benefits and rights. The fact that anyone is against that is simply mind-boggling to me.

 

Again, that's where we disagree. I think marriage is a facet of religion.

 

I am all for tax benefits, health insurance benefits, etc for two gay people. Just don't call it marriage. That's my point of view.

 

Call it wrong, close minded, homophobic, or whatever (many of you have already). But at least UKMustangFan will civilly discuss it with me.

[ColonelCrazy]

Again, that's where we disagree. I think marriage is a facet of religion.

 

I am all for tax benefits, health insurance benefits, etc for two gay people. Just don't call it marriage. That's my point of view.

 

Call it wrong, close minded, homophobic, or whatever (many of you have already). But at least UKMustangFan will civilly discuss it with me.

 

Again, you have a LEGAL RIGHT to get married. There is also a religious component to many marriages. Those two, while closely related in some aspects, are treated as completely separate due to the separation of church & state. There is a distinction, and clearly you fail to appreciate that.

[UKMustangFan]

Again, that's where we disagree. I think marriage is a facet of religion.

 

I am all for tax benefits, health insurance benefits, etc for two gay people. Just don't call it marriage. That's my point of view.

 

Call it wrong, close minded, homophobic, or whatever (many of you have already). But at least UKMustangFan will civilly discuss it with me.

 

Do you also believe that the union between two individuals (for argument's sake, let's say a man and a woman) that decide to get married by the Justice of the Peace should not be referred to as marriage?