Ok not too good example with berries. How about if some fruit growing on tree is discovered. It would not be called apple, it would have new name. Maybe blapple? Or whatever.
Would that mean it would be worse than apple or "discriminated" because it is called different? Both would be fruits. Same as garriage and marriage both would be civil unions.

Laws can be passed or changed anyway. You can pass that garriage and marriage must always have same rights and its good to go.

We can sit here all day long and try to come up with examples. A new fruit would not be called an apple, but it would still be defined as a fruit.

I'll just cede the point. Clearly you have placed some intrinsic value on the definition of certain words. There is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

I'll leave you with this one thought.

When you have a group of people anything you do to label any segment of that group as different from the others can open that segment it up to discrimination of some sort. It may never happen, but it might. We saw it for years with civil unions. Civil unions were 100% legal in many places, but if you happened to work for the government they didn't recognize it and therefore your legal partner could not have access to any benefits you had from that job. The same could happen if you force gay couples to refer to themselves as having something other than a marriage.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

i think they're saying g-marriage is acceptable as long as it sits in the back of the bus

nope, only to you because you have a vested interest in being morally right. I don't.

I am able to see the conservative rights concerns and the gay agenda while you are polarized and only able to see your own agenda. :thumbsup

Nail, head, hammer:thumbsup

I wonder if those opposed to the word marriage "being redefined" to include same-sex couples disagree with the outcome of Loving v. Virginia? It redefined marriage for many states. Should interracial couples have been given something called other than marriage?

you're going to love the shit out of this:

'Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. '

now you can get married to Mc Donald's because the definition of marriage has been redefined :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

:winkwink:

yea, but we know full well how much bullshit 'corporate personhoods' is

Amen! Corporations are not people and money is not speech, it is property.
Move to Amend

What is the gay agenda exactly? I hear that a lot.

As far as I can tell the gay agenda is simply gay people wanting the same rights as straight people.

the AP had declared that the phrase 'illegal alien' can no longer be use in AP stories, the phrase 'undocumented worked' must be substituted. this is effect redefines illegal aliens, as not law breakers, but a few guys that haven't filled out the correct paperwork... that my friend is in effect is working to change established law..

I see the dictionary redefining marriage as having the same effect. so in essence a dictionary and newspaper are now our lawmakers setting policy.

Just to be clear, you will never shoot a girl that is married or divorced as she dishonored her marriage vows and is someone you do not wish to associate with? You refuse to speak to divorced people as they broke the promise of until death do us part?

How do you justify shooting porn when so many wives feel their husbands should not watch it?

You made some bold claims to try to prop up your argument that you know are not true.

You're either a hypocrite or an idiot. Just trying to establish which.

shit doesn't recognize '.ca' domains lol

6:00 am Gym
8:00 am Breakfast (oatmeal and egg whites)
9:00 am Hair appointment
10:00 am Shopping
12:00 PM Brunch

2:00 PM
1) Assume complete control of the U.S. Federal, State and Local
Governments as well as all other national governments,
2) Recruit all straight youngsters to our debauched lifestyle,
3) Destroy all healthy heterosexual marriages,
4) Replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents of Colombian
and Jamaican drug cartels,
5) Establish planetary chain of "homo breeding gulags" where over-medicated
imprisoned straight women are turned into artificially impregnated baby
factories to produce prepubescent love slaves for our devotedly
pederastic gay leadership,
6) bulldoze all houses of worship, and
7) Secure total control of the INTERNET and all mass media for the
exclusive use of child pornographers.

2:30 PM Get forty winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from
stress of world conquest
4:00 PM Cocktails
6:00 PM Light Dinner (soup, salad, with Chardonnay)
8:00 PM Theater
11:00 PM Bed (du jour)?

:upsidedow

There isn't a "gay" agenda and there aren't "gay" people. Because, according to others in this thread, your use of the word "gay" involves a WRONG meaning to the word "gay," which actually means happy and has now been devalued by the added definition (or alternate use of the word) to mean "homosexual."


:winkwink:

Do you see divorce as breaking marriage vows? You should. They clearly state that they will stay married until death. If you don't associate with anyone who has dishonored their marriage you better not be associating with divorced people.

or people boning outta wedlock

no gay sex before gay marriage

what does shooting a model have to do with being friends? my business partners do not cheat on their wives. you're way out there dude :2 cents:

pretty sure stores about gay child abuse being somewhat suppressed by the media while stores of gay discrimination are widely covered could be construed as a gay agenda...

however like you have pointed out above the gay couples and people that I know are just ordinary people working and doing what they can to contribute and enjoy life :winkwink:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Same with "fags"... the entire smoking experience has been devalued:upsidedow

I'm divorced and I did dishonor my vows.. at the time of my marriage I was a using drug addict... would you consider a using drug addict as a person to get into a business relationship with?

what's with you anyway? why are you blowing things to an extreme example to make me look foolish? I will say you are very polite about it which is a real breath of fresh air considering the behaviors of the other like minded individuals here at GFY who immediately resort to low quality name calling if anyone dare to disagree with their opinion.

and honestly I didn't make a conscious decision to not have unfaithful friends... I have very few close relationships, so when I examined my relationships I found the my close friends were all faithful in the marriages and had been since the beginning of the marriages.

the one exception is my friend that is a swinger, as a coupe their relationship is so weird I have no idea what is going on and BTW they are divorced at this time.

I apologize if this doesn't meet you standards of bigoted behaviors or paint me in a negative light, this is just the plain old truth :2 cents:

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

marriage license to get in the bathhouse. like Costco... show your card at the door :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I am just trying to point out that life is complex. Human relationships are complex. These things, obviously, I don't need to tell you, but sometimes people like to speak in absolutes and I find myself wanting to point out that sometimes those absolutes aren't as absolute as they might think.

In the end, the reality is that throughout this debate we likely aren't going to change each other's minds. For you, there is a problem with two gay people getting married and calling it a marriage. I think they should be allowed to call it a marriage. To me it is just a word, but to you, and others, the word holds some kind of value that you feel would be reduced if gays were able to use it.

I have always felt that the language is fluid. Things changes. Words take on new and different meanings over time and when we allow ourselves to get bogged down in the details of certain things it holds us back from moving forward. If you look at how we speak and write now as compared to as little as 100 years ago it is very different. Never mind comparing it to 500 or 1000 years ago.

I prefer to remain polite. I respect other's opinions and I feel, in the end, it is a free country and we all entitled to feel how we want to feel. Calling someone names or being an ass to someone isn't going to help me prove my point or disprove theirs. Just because I don't agree with someone on some point doesn't mean I hate then, nor do I want them to hate me so I try to respect other's points of view while trying to make the case for why I feel I am correct in whatever matter is being discussed. Civil, intelligent debate is a good, healthy thing.

Fuck people.

No, I mean it. FUCK people. Actually have sex with people - anyway you want it, any configuration, any combination, any which way or any witch way

I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK. IT DOES NOT AFFECT HOW I HAVE SEX OR WHO I HAVE SEX WITH SO WTFE YO.

Just don't do that nipple thing, ouch. Gay dudes are always doing shit to their nipples.

I appreciate this dialog, thank you. I have no issues with gay couples enjoying all the benefits that any straight couple enjoys... the word marriage really holds no extra ordinary value for 'me'... I merely point out that the word 'marriage' holds a special value to a large segment of the population AND that the gay lobbies intentionally used the word 'marriage' to antagonize this segment of the population.

my personal opinion is that this was uncalled for, and possibly had the gay lobby used a different word none of this would have ever been noticed or been a controversy. to the best of my knowledge Disney has offered full benefits to gay couples for maybe as much as 15 years and it's has never been mentioned by the media.






I'll read the rest later... no more time... family stuff to do

.

http://www.fastcocreate.com/multisit...time-cover.jpg

I'm Caucasian and married to a Japanese woman.

In California, it would have been illegal for my marriage to take place prior to 1948. In fact, 38 States continued to ban interracial marriage at that time. It was not until 1967, just 46 years ago, that anti-miscegenation laws were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Times change...deal with it! :liebe028:

:stoned

ADG

yep, this

And usually the most homophobic.

Balls balls balls and testicles.
Hard stiff GIANT GAY COCKS shoving in and out of hairy smelly ASSHOLES.

Live it up.

Perhaps you missed my question to you earlier... Do you disagree with the outcome of Loving v. Virginia? In 1967 it "redefined" marriage in my state and others. Perhaps if interracial couples had used a different word none of the hysteria or controversy then would have occurred. What about all of the people who didn't want their relationships called marriage? Activist judges shoved it down their throat:winkwink: