One conservative's dramatic reversal on gay marriage

[james&olya 1,121]

We have different definitions of marriage. But I'd love to have a marriage "roll" if there's butter on it please.

Now if we're talking about the "role" of marriage, you're right. I don't appreciate it. I find the societal construct of marriage, historically, very oppressive. I am glad it has been changing for the last 25 years.

Every child does not have a mother and father - and that is fine. Better in some situations that one of the parents is removed.

I think you are ignorant and close-minded, and time has already started to prove me right

Danno himself long ago proved you right!

[himher 634]

We have different definitions of marriage. But I'd love to have a marriage "roll" if there's butter on it please.

Now if we're talking about the "role" of marriage, you're right. I don't appreciate it. I find the societal construct of marriage, historically, very oppressive. I am glad it has been changing for the last 25 years.

Every child does not have a mother and father - and that is fine. Better in some situations that one of the parents is removed.

I think you are ignorant and close-minded, and time has already started to prove me right

Every child does not have a mother and father

Brilliant

Next you will claim what? That time is going to prove that a couple of knob-gobblers over billions and billions of years can statistically beshat a baby by putting stinky butter on their marriage roll?

Edited March 17, 2013 by himher

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Every child does not have a mother and father

Brilliant

Next you will claim what? That time is going to prove that a couple of knob-gobblers over billions and billions of years can statistically beshat a baby by putting stinky butter on their marriage roll?

What. The.

[Danno 1,228]

We have different definitions of marriage. But I'd love to have a marriage "roll" if there's butter on it please.

Now if we're talking about the "role" of marriage, you're right. I don't appreciate it. I find the societal construct of marriage, historically, very oppressive. I am glad it has been changing for the last 25 years.

Every child does not have a mother and father - and that is fine. Better in some situations that one of the parents is removed.

I think you are ignorant and close-minded, and time has already started to prove me right

Just to clarify, when I said every child have a mother and father I of course referred in a biological sense

and that is what makes that union decreed by nature and nearly every major faith as the unique relationship which life and society is based on.

To hear some of you folks talk it's like you are under the impression that the man+women+child... just developed at random and "it could have been any combination."

YOu can make up new definitions to what constitutes a marriage if you choose but find for me a dictionary or Law dictionary that defines marriage as anything except what the whole of Western civilization has known it as.... the best you can do is find some recently written text which not only changes the essential definition but then must veer into some open ended definition due to the certainty that it will keep changing now.

[BaBamSam 239]

Just to clarify, when I said every child have a mother and father I of course referred in a biological sense

and that is what makes that union decreed by nature and nearly every major faith as the unique relationship which life and society is based on.

To hear some of you folks talk it's like you are under the impression that the man+women+child... just developed at random and "it could have been any combination."

YOu can make up new definitions to what constitutes a marriage if you choose but find for me a dictionary or Law dictionary that defines marriage as anything except what the whole of Western civilization has known it as.... the best you can do is find some recently written text which not only changes the essential definition but then must veer into some open ended definition due to the certainty that it will keep changing now.

Thank goodness words never change their meanings /sarcasm.

[himher 634]

What. The.

blink blink blink bleh

What Danno meant in his post was succinctly clear. The answer was asinine, funny, and rich with potential for ridicule. That ridicule is not however intended for the consumption of other liberals. Factual limitation and/or reality are actually suspected to be health hazards to liberals. As a liberal, you probably should consider returning to and limiting your mental efforts to what you do best and simply take what your fellow liberals say at face value (rather than) trying to determine the meaning of the comments that make fun of them.

[^_^ 5,021]

Why do we use a base 10 number system? Is it because we have 10 fingers and 10 toes? There is no rational reason to prefer base 10 to base-anythingelse.

And yes, somewhere inside my head, that comment was relevant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1363533903' post='6053647]

Why do we use a base 10 number system? Is it because we have 10 fingers and 10 toes? There is no rational reason to prefer base 10 to base-anythingelse.

And yes, somewhere inside my head, that comment was relevant.

So, redefining marriage would confuse people until they get used to it, much like the metric system that mechanics, veterans, and anyone who every took a lab class in college are already familiar with, but confounds everyone else?

[Danno 1,228]

So, redefining marriage would confuse people until they get used to it.

Family and social dynamics seem to be rooted into more than just a custom or habit and that a change would only present an "adjustment period".

If it is true that -any old combination- will equally rear children and provide for a healthy society then my position is invalid on it's main point.

But we do know this right now, those communities where children have the least connection to their parents are the same communities no one wants to live in.

We do know that since the traditional family structure has declined the need for social services has soared.

The need for mental health has ballooned.

Addictions increased.

Prison space has exploded.

Nearly every marker of social well being has deteriorated.

That has little to do with gays except to now move forward to further dissolve the meaning of family......(this base of societal capital) .....for an untested social experiment is a risk,

from which there is no return.

NOw I have posted the statistics which highlight the long term problems Children from gay relationships have and their experience later in life, but this is a small minority of the population, of greater concern

in my view, it is the further degrading effect it will have on the importance of family structure and parents raising the children they bring into the world.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But we do know this right now...

We do know that since the traditional family structure...

That has little to do with gays...

from which there is no return.

The short version.

[^_^ 5,021]

So, redefining marriage would confuse people until they get used to it, much like the metric system that mechanics, veterans, and anyone who every took a lab class in college are already familiar with, but confounds everyone else?

The metric system uses powers of 10. The English system does not. A transition over to metric would actually make it easier because dividing by and multiplying by 10 comes naturally to human beings.

Edited March 17, 2013 by ^_^

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[quote name=' timestamp='1363549994' post='6053914]

The metric system uses powers of 10. The English system does not. A transition over to metric would actually make it easier because dividing by and multiplying by 10 comes naturally to human beings.

Thinking in hexadecimal comes easy to me too, after taking a taking a course in Assembly Language (sic).