How about “Shacking?”
Is there a PC List to follow for the Democrat’s War On Women?
If so would the more accurate term “Shacking” receive a higher or lower rating than the more vague term “Relationship?”
That was excellent. Sharp guy.
If only our political leaders had the courage to tell the truth.
So what if I have a church ceremony and refuse the marriage license?
Can sodomy produce a child? Enough said.
Bop Ellis in The American Clarion in his rebuttal to the claim of what marriage is by an advocate of perversion , cites the definition of the word marriage.
This gets into the definition of words and meaning including the word pervert; 1st def. To turn from its right (or intended) purpose,use or meaning; misconstrue,misapply.
Hence any and all of those actively advocating such positions participating within the political group known as the democrat party. Which in practice is now hardly democratic and the word itself has been perverted by its members and as such is “democrat” in name only.
Those members can and should be considered nothing less than a bunch of perverts.Advocating “Universal Perversity” on anything they touch including poor “Uncle Tom”.
Very good! Basically, civil unions. And another reason why the church should NOT be performing these unions as “marriages”.
At what point are we (heterosexuals) going to admit that *we’ve* watered down marriage so much that it’s practically meaningless?
Marriage is a contract between four entities. The man, the woman, Society, and Gd.
The man and the woman agree to certain responsibilities for the good of those individuals and for the benefit of Society and this agreement is sanctified by Gd.
The problem is that we (heterosexuals) have watered down our own responsibilities to almost zero, yet we still want the benefits of marriage accorded by Society. We still want to ‘feel good’ about our union being sanctified by Gd. *We* are the ones who redefined marriage as a ‘loving relationship’ and no longer the contractual agreement that it has *always*, historically, been. (Love was part of the contractual *obligations* of both parties, not the foundation of the union.)
*We* changed the definition of marriage and created this freaking mess.
So we want the benefits, but we don’t want to pay a price for it and we definitely want an easy-out clause before committing.
We now have no-fault divorce so that we can walk away whenever we want. There are zero criminal penalties for cheating. We’re rewarded with money and other material goods when we reproduce outside of marriage.
Then we cry when gays want the benefits and don’t understand the responsibilities. *We’ve* stripped away all meaning and turned it into nothing more than a privilege.
Actually criminalize infidelity. (As it stands, the only punishment for threatening pregnancy with someone who’s not your spouse or bringing home disease is feeling bad.) Make divorce more difficult.
Enforce *responsibility* on heterosexuals who sign up for the contract. Make marriage a serious commitment once again.
And once marriage means something, most homosexuals won’t want much to do with the institution. As it is, all they see is a big bag of freebies - because that’s all it is. Tell gays that they can enter into such a union, but they’ll go to prison if they cheat on their spouse and see how many *really* want the tax breaks. Tell them that a divorce is going to cost them HUGE and, if there are minor children involved, may not even be possible until the kids are grown. I’ll bet they’ll become very quiet.
And this just might have another effect. Maybe more of us will think twice before running off to Vegas if we understand that the knot won’t so easily be untied.
Of course, if we really want to fix society, we’ve got to stop rewarding women for having children without the benefit of marriage, but that’s an another subject.
I look forward to the day when society re-chooses goals consistent with morality and limited government, and the ones who try to keep the dominoes from standing back up are called obstructionists.
It is refreshing to hear someone speak like this, in secular terms that even liberals can understand. He doesn't scream, bloviate, belittle. I was quite impressed.
bump
(Homo) But you are denying us the right you have to marry whom we love; that is discrimination! We just want the same right you have to marry the person you love!
I do not have the right to marry anyone whom I love! I have the right to marry a willing, non-prohibited person of the opposite sex. Willing; not already married; not underage; not a close relative; legally competent to enter into such a relationship; love not legally required, though desirable. You have the same right I do: you can marry any willing, non-prohibited person you wish; a person of the same sex is equally prohibited to all, as is a sibling, a child or an animal.
(Homo) That's what I said: it's discrimination, and now I going to go out and demonstrate in everybody's face, until I get my way!
There's no reasoning with the immature narcissists of the world.