Quantcast

"Which parent do I not need - my Mom or my Dad?" ... from the mouths of babes flows forth wisdom in abundance

teachaman~PWCM~JLA 2013/03/25 15:05:07


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUfYaFys4Aw&feature;=player_de...
Published on Mar 14, 2013



Grace Evans (age 11) bravely reminded the MN House Civil Law Committee that redefining marriage sends the message that one of her parents doesn't matter in the eyes of the law.

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX 2013/03/25 16:06:44 (edited)
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    Grace made an excellent point why DIVORCE SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.

    When are Republicans going to present a "Preservation of Marriage" Bill that outlaws divorce?
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/25 17:03:19
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    to an extent I concur with you Fawkes - something pretty rare ... marriages should be MUCH harder to enter as well as to leave ...
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/25 17:14:06
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    By making divorce illegal I think we'd solve the latter problem. The Christians should be 100% in favor of it don't you agree?
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/25 17:30:31
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    Catholics already make divorce "illegal" - at least it used to be before they were pushed toward a more liberal opinion of it ... there are pretty clear rules about how and why a divorce can happen from Hebrew scripture, but in Mark chapter 10 Jesus basically votes against it ... it was MUCH harder, however, to enter a marriage then - and more expensive as well ... Protestants can trace at least some of their roots to the divorce question, most famously involving English King Henry VIII and his problem making a male heir with his first wife (and other ones, too) ... Henry's haphazard marriages, and consequent imprisoning/executing of several of them, serve as an argument against divorce - so it's easy to say Protestants should probably be against it, too
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/25 17:42:05
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    Attempting to "Preserve" marriage by denying the privilege to some based on gender while allowing arbitrary divorce to any married couple who decides to give up is the epitome of hypocrisy.
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/26 16:22:29
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    attempting to re-define a term like "marriage" to include unions that have NEVER IN HISTORY been accepted as such, and doing so strictly for the purpose of causing strife to the overwhelming majority by a miniscule minority is more than hypocritical - it's SOCIOPATHIC... only sociopaths believe that the entire world, and all of reality in fact, must conform to their own particular way of looking at things, and that they themselves are ultimately the supreme authority to which all others must bend ... for the extremists in the gay-lobby, the condition of "domestic partnership" is not acceptable, completely regardless of the fact that it is LEGALLY an exact duplicate of the legal state of marriage ... the extremists of the homosexual marriage movement desire nothing less than that the entirety of history and all of society be irrevocably altered to reflect and legitimize their own perverse version of these things ...

    if you demended that the moon be made of cheese, and protested around with thousands of other delusional folks that believed the moon was made of cheese, getting vitriolic at others who proved to you beyond any possible doubt that the moon was in fact demonstrably NOT made of cheese, would that noise then actually make the moon TURN INTO CHEESE? ... of course not ...
    attempting to re-define a term like "marriage" to include unions that have NEVER IN HISTORY been accepted as such, and doing so strictly for the purpose of causing strife to the overwhelming majority by a miniscule minority is more than hypocritical - it's SOCIOPATHIC... only sociopaths believe that the entire world, and all of reality in fact, must conform to their own particular way of looking at things, and that they themselves are ultimately the supreme authority to which all others must bend ... for the extremists in the gay-lobby, the condition of "domestic partnership" is not acceptable, completely regardless of the fact that it is LEGALLY an exact duplicate of the legal state of marriage ... the extremists of the homosexual marriage movement desire nothing less than that the entirety of history and all of society be irrevocably altered to reflect and legitimize their own perverse version of these things ...

    if you demended that the moon be made of cheese, and protested around with thousands of other delusional folks that believed the moon was made of cheese, getting vitriolic at others who proved to you beyond any possible doubt that the moon was in fact demonstrably NOT made of cheese, would that noise then actually make the moon TURN INTO CHEESE? ... of course not - unless, of course, you changed the definition of the word "cheese" to include moon rock ... and demanding that all persons therafter be required to EAT MOON ROCK instead of cheese is the perfect analogy to this idiotic "gay marriage" movement ... no one at all is being denied the right to marry - any person of either gender can marry any other person of the opposite gender, as long as both are of the age required by law, and they are not blood relatives (in most places, at least), and both agree to be married to one another ... AND, any person may join in a legally binding partnership with any other person, regardless of gender ... it's true that domestic partneship rules are irregular, and should be changed to reflect my previous statement of having all of the legal strength of an actual marriage - and that is something that serious people can seriously debate with a mind to a workable end ... if the sociopaths wanna eat some moon rock, they should be allowed to do so - but you can bet your ass is still ain't cheese!
    (more)
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/26 16:51:35
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    Marriage has been redefined multiple times throughout history. As early as 1875, Marriage was defined as between a white man and a white woman in the US in several states.

    One of the main considerations for the Supreme Court's determination of Constitutionality is if the right or privilege in question will threaten the rights or privileges of others. Same Sex Marriage does not.

    The Supreme Court is not deciding a definition of marriage. The Supreme Court is deciding if the freedom of two people of the same sex can be denied a freedom afforded to two people of the opposite sex. Nine States DO NOT define marriage as "between a man and a woman" therefore the "one man one woman" definition of marriage cannot be used by the Supreme Court as it is now ambiguous.

    Any law, whether by legislation or by ballot, which denies freedoms to some that are afforded to others and does not infringe upon or impair the rights or freedoms of others is unconstitutional.
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/26 16:55:56 (edited)
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    then I assume you are going to gleefully eat the moon rock? ... good luck ... it will still not be cheese, no matter hwo much you may wish it were ... my personal preference is that the government had as much to do with marriage as it does with baptism - but that is another story altogether
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/26 19:14:10
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    Marriage is not a religious event. No church has the power to marry anyone on their own. Pastors who conduct ceremonies must be authorized to do so by the state and a state issued marriage license is still required.

    It would be nice if you brought some knowledge to the party.
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/26 19:32:50
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    so you've become nasty at last ... please explain exactly which bureaucrat signs off on the state-sponsored weddings of Bedouin tribesmen even today? ... of Brazilian Indians deep in the Amazon? ... of polygamist Morman cultists in the US? ... marriage, as much as you seem to prefer it not to be so, is a religious institution - one that has been so since time immemorial, and that will remain so ... the fact that governments have something or another to do with it is simply based on the incontrovertable fact that governments do not make money - they only take it from those that do - and they weild authority with said money over the populations under their control/influence ... governments often encourage marriage since the most stable unit of society has long been the committed married couple and their children, and remains so even to this day - although we've already agreed that our country has seen a dramatic change in the committment part of that equation ... my proposal to divest government from the utterly parasitic relationship it has with married persons should be welcome to you, I would think - do you not favor the freedom of individuals from government interference? ... isn't your seeming embrace of homosexual so-called "marriage" a statement that fairly screams something along the lines of "get out of my bedroom!", or is it something else that motivates you here?
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/26 19:40:09 (edited)
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    +1
    Comparing marriage to baptism is Sophomoric. You've just proven how unequipped you are to discuss this topic.

    This country was not founded on a principle of denying freedoms to some while affording it to others.

    The phrase is "With Liberty and Justice for ALL."

    What do you do when you get to that part? Lie or just mumble over it?
  • teacham... FAWKES'... 2013/03/26 20:57:41
    teachaman~PWCM~JLA
    more name-calling? ... comparing homosexual unions to marriages is sociopathic ... please read what I've written ... then logically explain that separating a secular entity (government) from a religious ceremony like marriage is in some way deleterious to the phrase you quote from the pledge of allegience ... so that and you will be able to demonstrate you are worthy of this debate ... do it not and you will prove your inadequacy - yet again
  • FAWKES'... teacham... 2013/03/26 21:05:49
    FAWKES' NOOSE ~ ΔTX
    Turn on the news. The Supreme Court just threw out the State's "Procreation" defense. They were laughed at by the audience. That's all they had.

    "We allow old people to marry and they can't procreate."

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/24 03:59:32

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals