You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Marriage
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
It won't take 40 years. They look stupid already.
Fortunately, they aren't satisfied with just looking stupid. Many of them are making sure their stupidity is quoted for the laughter of future generations.
Incest is next. Imagine how foolish we will all look in 120 years when the President of the US is inaugurated with the First Lady by his side, and not one even cares that they are brother and sister.
Clearly you have decided not to wait.Imagine how foolish we will all look in 120 years
Also, since when is what happens in the White House the standard by which we define ourselves in Canada?
Incest is next. Imagine how foolish we will all look in 120 years when the President of the US is inaugurated with the First Lady by his side, and not one even cares that they are brother and sister.
If the problems presented by inbreeding were resolved, I don't see why this would be objectionable. Creepy to us...but only because we've been taught to think that way.
Clearly you have decided not to wait.
Also, since when is what happens in the White House the standard by which we define ourselves in Canada?
Clearly how? You have no retort so you are compelled to attempt an insult? Thanks for your contribution.
ps. Please see post #8 in this thread, for an indication of how the future will unfold.....
not a prison... an institution!... and a way for lawyers to make money. and with gay marriage... there is also gay divorce, which is of course, great for lawyers!
errr, you couldn't get rid of that gif, could ya?
Gay marriage was already legal; there was no criminal offense of 'gay marriage' like there is for incest or polygamy.
But of course, the gay lobby didn't mind that people thought otherwise.
Bottom line, the gay couples wanted money ... but if they focused on that, their cause would be less appealing to the masses.
Victim card politics.
But of course, the gay lobby didn't mind that people thought otherwise.
Bottom line, the gay couples wanted money ... but if they focused on that, their cause would be less appealing to the masses.
Victim card politics.
This is incorrect.Gay marriage was already legal; there was no criminal offense of 'gay marriage' like there is for incest or polygamy.
Behaviours can be illegal. Marriage isn't a behaviour, it's an institution which is sanctioned by the state. Therefore, marriage is, by definition legal.
Therefore Same Sex marriage could never be "illegal" because the state did not recognize the right and thus it did not exist. It was also not "legal" either since it was not permitted by the state.
The state needed to open the definition of marriage to be appropriately more inclusive. It wasn't about money ... it was about human rights.
Here's a contribution for you (I was trying to give you a hint and you failed to take it): There are a number of very valid reasons (beyond the genetic implications) why incest should not be permitted. The same does not apply to same sex relationships. If you simply don't get it, you are looking foolish. If you do get it, you are much worse. If you need this explained further, you have no place in an adult conversation.capitalguy said:Clearly how? You have no retort so you are compelled to attempt an insult? Thanks for your contribution.
Incest is next. Imagine how foolish we will all look in 120 years when the President of the US is inaugurated with the First Lady by his side, and not one even cares that they are brother and sister.
European royalty have been a bunch of inbreds for hundreds of years.
This is incorrect.
Behaviours can be illegal. Marriage isn't a behaviour, it's an institution which is sanctioned by the state. Therefore, marriage is, by definition legal.
Therefore Same Sex marriage could never be "illegal" because the state did not recognize the right and thus it did not exist. It was also not "legal" either since it was not permitted by the state.
The state needed to open the definition of marriage to be appropriately more inclusive. It wasn't about money ... it was about human rights.
I am looking at it from a more practical standpoint.
So you didn't get a piece of paper from the govt that says you're married.
No one was preventing gay couples from living together. Unlike interracial marriage, which was a crime and you could get arrested for it.
So you can't adopt kids, or get tax breaks from the govt.
Well, boo hoo. Neither can single people, and no one is championing their 'rights'.
European royalty have been a bunch of inbreds for hundreds of years.
Another ignorant anti Royals post. Feel free to reread some of the past threads on the Royals when this claim was posted then blown out of the water as not something unusual or unique to the Royals, oooooooooooor feel free to remain ignorant.
