Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 24th, 2012, 05:09 PM   #421
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevlar View Post


Funny. Though, actually, I do agree with aber here - not because I think a "creator" gave us our rights, per-se, but because the government (Bill of Rights) cannot "give" rights. Rights are innate. The government can only restrict rights, and what the Bill of Rights actually does is define those rights that the government can't touch.
Im not arguing that point. Aber keeps referring to this right to practice his religion which I fully support. But that right of his, while granted from his Creator, is protected under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

And it isnt saved just for him.

My words that Aber was responding to...

Quote:
And I have an interest because you front out your God given right to practice your religion, protected by the bill of rights but take no issue with denying others protected rights in the name of your religion. That is exactly why our founders came here.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 05:20 PM   #422
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
We have certain inaliably rights edowed by our creator, not a bill of rights.
And your right to practice your religion is protected under the 1st Amendment. I encourage you to read more than the bible. Start here....

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
In this country we have that right and freedom to practice any religion we choose.
Nobody is arguing to the contrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
You never spelled it out but the tone you take in your words says it all. See who says you should be able to tell me to not talk about God or religion to others? I have that right. Others can speak for themselves if they wanted me to stop, just as you can. I don't think it's your place to speak for others. Maybe others want to hear it.
The tone I take? Are you that all powerful you can tell my tone based on the text on the screen?

No one is telling you to not talk about God or religion to others. But the flip side is some of those you may be talking to don't want to hear what you have to say. Recognizing that is key to functioning in social situations. Example... You quoting scripture to those who have expressed to you they aren't interested warrants the responses you are getting.

Interesting you tell me its not my place to speak for others, yet you are willing to do just that in regards to how others live their life, with how and what they do, having no influence on you.

You recognize your rights, but are willing to deny others theirs because they don't jive with your religion. Please read some history books. Go back to at least 1600.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 06:02 PM   #423
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Based on how the legal system defines terms, and this issue is essentially a legal one, marriage is already defined. It encompasses everyone. The gay rights movement is not trying to redefine anything, its already defined. The movement has sprung up because they are actively being denied the same things straight folks have.

Aber complaining about gay pride parades it quite amusing.... Cause they wouldn't be happening if he would stop persecuting them. Its that whole action/reaction thing. Also, their protests/parades are also protected by our founding documents.

I understand your stance.... Im just not convinced calling it something entirely different is the answer. IMO, just use the dictionary. How others define it in their own lives does not detract from how you define it.



Damn... Hard to portray sarcasm.....
I was being Sarcastic too. We need a sarcasm smiley.

If you go back 50 years and look at a Dictionary I bet the definitions you're quoting would prove my point more then yours. So, in a round about way, they have changed because of pressure from the liberal side of our country. Maybe?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3-foot View Post
Sure there is, personally I oppose the government having a roll in marriage regardless of who is being married. They should mind their own business.

Why does the government have a roll in marriage at all? ....tax exemptions and child custody issues.

Why is a married couple given tax privilege?

Why can't contract law be used to decide child custody?

That conversation will never develop here, because everyone would prefer to argue pointlessly over religion.
I would be glad to talk about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, marriage is already defined. From the origins of language until recently it has meant the uniting of men and women.

It’s only recently that it has become widely used to describe the uniting of 2 people of the same sex.

But we should not confuse dictionary definitions with legal definitions. Dictionaries report the common usage of a word, they are not, contrary to common perception, an authority on how words must be used. Dictionary definitions will change over time. Legal definitions should not change just because the common usage of the words has changed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Please cite your evidence to support your claim.

In instances where there is no case law, often times the dictionary definition of terms is used.

Legal definitions are made using words from the dictionary.

See the common theme here? The dictionary, not the bible.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
At what point do you think the bible and the dictionary split?

Noah Webster used the bible as a basis to right his Original dictionary.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 06:16 PM   #424
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
I was being Sarcastic too. We need a sarcasm smiley.

If you go back 50 years and look at a Dictionary I bet the definitions you're quoting would prove my point more then yours. So, in a round about way, they have changed because of pressure from the liberal side of our country. Maybe?
While I make no excuses for liberalism... I think that would be a stretch.

I can understand your stance in regards to changing definitions. But I think thats just a matter of society progressing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
At what point do you think the bible and the dictionary split?

Noah Webster used the bible as a basis to right his Original dictionary.
Interesting question and thanks for the link. I learned something today.

It would appear, based on the 30 seconds of searching I did on Noah Webster, his intention behind writing the dictionary was making it easier to teach children religion in school, without having to resort to the bible. There are even biblical verses in the first edition of the dictionary. Seems a little perverse to me. But that was during a time where religion in families was strong and a center point of many communities. Times have changed.

Take his definition of marriage....

Quote:
Marriage:
The act of uniting a man and woman for life...Marriage was instituted by God himself..."Marriage is honorable in all..." Heb. 13.
Why not just pull out your bible? Why reference the bible, in a reference book? Why write an entirely new book in which you define things that are already defined in the bible? Why not just read the bible?
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 07:16 PM   #425
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
While I make no excuses for liberalism... I think that would be a stretch.

I can understand your stance in regards to changing definitions. But I think thats just a matter of society progressing.
Defiantly, Just a thought.

Quote:
Interesting question and thanks for the link. I learned something today.

It would appear, based on the 30 seconds of searching I did on Noah Webster, his intention behind writing the dictionary was making it easier to teach children religion in school, without having to resort to the bible. There are even biblical verses in the first edition of the dictionary. Seems a little perverse to me. But that was during a time where religion in families was strong and a center point of many communities. Times have changed.

Take his definition of marriage....



Why not just pull out your bible? Why reference the bible, in a reference book? Why write an entirely new book in which you define things that are already defined in the bible? Why not just read the bible?
Honestly, I think it was becuase back then, in the culture he was in, the bible was looked at as more of a Reference book then 'a book of Fairy tales'. Also he was a very large supporter of the founding fathers (specifically George Washington) and what they brought to our constitution and bill of rights. If they didn't want a State sponsored religion (which I could understand coming from England at that time) then this would be a great way to still use it to teach with out using the actual bible. Which, BTW, they did for quite a while.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 08:03 PM   #426
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
Honestly, I think it was becuase back then, in the culture he was in, the bible was looked at as more of a Reference book then 'a book of Fairy tales'. Also he was a very large supporter of the founding fathers (specifically George Washington) and what they brought to our constitution and bill of rights. If they didn't want a State sponsored religion (which I could understand coming from England at that time) then this would be a great way to still use it to teach with out using the actual bible. Which, BTW, they did for quite a while.
I agree with and understand what youve said...

Not knowing enough about Webster to make an intelligent comment, I wonder if him writing the dictionary was in response to some pushback from the community in regards to using the bible in school....

ETA:

Found this quote from Webster...

Quote:
"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The preservation of [our] government depends on the faithful discharge of this Duty; if the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded. If [our] government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine Commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the Laws." -History of United States by Noah Webster.
I think addressing this quote can sum up my stance quite nicely.

I agree with everything he has said, other than the idea that principles come only from God. By "Divine Commands" I assume he is referring to the Ten Commandments. While I concede they are a great basis for one to set their standards, one does not neet to study or obey them to abide by them. Common decency, respect go a long way to being a good citizen, absent of God.

2ND ETA....

Found this on Wiki...

Quote:
Webster's Speller was entirely secular. It ended with two pages of important dates in American history, beginning with Columbus's in 1492 and ending with the battle of Yorktown in 1781. There was no mention of God, the Bible, or sacred events. "Let sacred things be appropriated for sacred purposes," wrote Webster. As Ellis explains, "Webster began to construct a secular catechism to the nation-state. Here was the first appearance of 'civics' in American schoolbooks. In this sense, Webster's speller becoming what was to be the secular successor to The New England Primer with its explicitly biblical injunctions."[32] In turn after 1840 Webster's books lost market share to the McGuffey Eclectic Readers of William Holmes McGuffey, which sold over 120 million copies.[33]

Last edited by opie; May 24th, 2012 at 08:16 PM.
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 09:14 PM   #427
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
And your right to practice your religion is protected under the 1st Amendment. I encourage you to read more than the bible. Start here....

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

I do read more than my bible. I read whats on GL4x4 and more. I glanced over the link, there is alot of reading but interesting, thanks.

Nobody is arguing to the contrary.



The tone I take? Are you that all powerful you can tell my tone based on the text on the screen?

I would guess its the wording and not being face to face makes it difficult to read expression. Reading between the lines maybe.

No one is telling you to not talk about God or religion to others. But the flip side is some of those you may be talking to don't want to hear what you have to say. Recognizing that is key to functioning in social situations. Example... You quoting scripture to those who have expressed to you they aren't interested warrants the responses you are getting.

Interesting you tell me its not my place to speak for others, yet you are willing to do just that in regards to how others live their life, with how and what they do, having no influence on you.

You recognize your rights, but are willing to deny others theirs because they don't jive with your religion. Please read some history books. Go back to at least 1600.
Like I said it is difficult to express ones self through a screen. We tend to lose the point through this type of communication.
I do not want to deny anybody thier right to live as they want to. I may not agree with and can do nothing about it but express my opinion.
I think we all do that here, we do alot of talking and all have an opinion of the topics at hand.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 10:26 PM   #428
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,376
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

There is no such thing as rights in this country. If there were, felons would have guns and gay people would be married. The "Rights" everybody speaks of is an illusion to make people feel good. If the guberment does not want you do do something, you're not going to do it.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24th, 2012, 10:34 PM   #429
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,913
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
I agree with and understand what youve said...

Not knowing enough about Webster to make an intelligent comment, I wonder if him writing the dictionary was in response to some pushback from the community in regards to using the bible in school....

ETA:

Found this quote from Webster...



I think addressing this quote can sum up my stance quite nicely.

I agree with everything he has said, other than the idea that principles come only from God. By "Divine Commands" I assume he is referring to the Ten Commandments. While I concede they are a great basis for one to set their standards, one does not neet to study or obey them to abide by them. Common decency, respect go a long way to being a good citizen, absent of God.
I see that quote and the term "Divine commands" as Convictions that are given by God. I'm sure that is also a favorite for the people that think our country is going down the crap hole morally and ethically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
There is no such thing as rights in this country. If there were, felons would have guns and gay people would be married. The "Rights" everybody speaks of is an illusion to make people feel good. If the guberment does not want you do do something, you're not going to do it.
Freedom isn't free. I think if you asked women in Pakistan or starving children in Africa, they'd be happy with the Illusion of Freedom then thier current state. Maybe not. I've seen some very joyful starving people.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 12:06 AM   #430
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,379
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
Ive posted 2, one from Merriam and one I believe from dictionary.com. Curious if you could provide the link to where you got the definition you posted.



You had me thinking about this... But IMO, its a stretch. Because the roots are still based in religion, and thats my issue with the issue.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marry

I just googled "marry" and took one of the first links. It provided several different entries, I of course picked the one that supported my argument. My point being that you keep wanting to use the definition that "The Dictionary" has, when there are hundreds of different dictionaries out there that could be used.

Are you saying that the word "marriage" is based on religion? Where in what I posted is there even the slightest mention of anything religious? And if it is true that the word is based on religion, that would seem to support my argument that we give the word "marriage" over the the religious folks to define however they want, and use a different word or term to describe the legally recognized union of 2 people.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 12:12 AM   #431
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,379
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
If you go back 50 years and look at a Dictionary I bet the definitions you're quoting would prove my point more then yours. So, in a round about way, they have changed because of pressure from the liberal side of our country. Maybe?
They changed because common usage changed. Dictionaries don't tell you how to use words, they report how people use words. That is why one from 50 years ago will be different than today.

In Noah Websters time the Bible would have been probably the only book many people ever read, or even saw, which is probably why he refereed to it so much.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 04:12 AM   #432
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marry

I just googled "marry" and took one of the first links. It provided several different entries, I of course picked the one that supported my argument. My point being that you keep wanting to use the definition that "The Dictionary" has, when there are hundreds of different dictionaries out there that could be used.
And if you look at the actual definition, it does not limit the definition of the word to 1 man and 1 woman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Are you saying that the word "marriage" is based on religion? Where in what I posted is there even the slightest mention of anything religious? And if it is true that the word is based on religion, that would seem to support my argument that we give the word "marriage" over the the religious folks to define however they want, and use a different word or term to describe the legally recognized union of 2 people.
No, Im saying the definition of 1 man and 1 woman has its roots in religion. The only reason, that I can find, why religion would dictate 1 man and 1 woman would be for procreation. And since gays can not procreate and sex without intent to procreate is a sin.....
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 06:16 AM   #433
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,376
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Transfer cases can be married or divorced, why can't gay people?
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 07:34 AM   #434
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 6,078
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuggets View Post
Transfer cases can be married or divorced, why can't gay people?
Transfer cases were made for each other
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 10:06 AM   #435
Scott2.0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-26-12
Location: Berkley
Posts: 197
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Transfer cases were made for each other
Apparently so were some gay people.
Scott2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 01:27 PM   #436
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,379
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
And if you look at the actual definition, it does not limit the definition of the word to 1 man and 1 woman.
Where do I go to find this “actual definition”? If you are Christian and believe that marriage is something that comes straight from God then it makes sense to define it per Gods rules.
Dictionaries just report common usage, so if that’s your source for this “actual definition” then in reality it means what we say it means. That can change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by opie View Post
No, Im saying the definition of 1 man and 1 woman has its roots in religion. The only reason, that I can find, why religion would dictate 1 man and 1 woman would be for procreation. And since gays can not procreate and sex without intent to procreate is a sin.....
So because you don’t understand it, it must be religion?

If there is a God then its’ all pretty simple, God makes the rules, you follow the rules or bad things happen. Although I think it’s open to debate if it’s considered a sin to have sex without the intent to procreate. I don’t recall anything saying “thou shalt not screw unless you’re trying to make a baby.” You just can’t have sex with someone you’re not married to. (which by default outlaws gay sex if you can’t have gay marriage.) One of the religious dynamic duo would know better than me.

But what if there is no god? Where did these rules come from if there is no god? Why has nearly every human society ended up with some form of “marriage”? I think these rules evolved with the human species. The human species requires many years to reach intellectual, physical, and sexual maturity. This lead to the need for some institution to try to keep parents together long enough to raise children to continue the species. Marriage evolved to fill that need. Because homosexuals cannot reproduce, there was no need for them to be included.

So what does this have to do with gay marriage today? Just that whether you believe in God or not, marriage is intrinsically linked to the survival of the species. It’s baked into our DNA. It’s hard wired into our brains. This, I believe, is why there is so much resistance to redefine marriage. The idea of male-female pair bonding is part of who we are as a species. That is not something that is easily changed.

Yes, eventually, perhaps in another generation or 2 people will wonder what the fuss was about. They can wait until that happens, or shortcut the process and get more rights now by dropping the insistence on redefining “marriage”.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 01:30 PM   #437
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,379
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
Transfer cases were made for each other
But if they both have a shaft, or both have a hole, they won't mate together. It takes a shaft in a hole to work.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 05:04 PM   #438
opie
www.krissplicing.com
 
Join Date: 07-21-08
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 818
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Where do I go to find this “actual definition”?
Its right there in the link you posted. You skipped over it to get to the origin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
If you are Christian and believe that marriage is something that comes straight from God then it makes sense to define it per Gods rules.
But Im not Christian. And there are alot of other citizens that are not Christian. We would like our Government to function on rules not laid out by any 1 religion. As established in our founding documents. If our Government is going to start defining and legislating based on scripture, then it might as well adopt a religion. But thats against the rules.

It would be no different if the Atheists attempted to legislate that any practice of religion is against the law. Clearly they would fail because our right to practice our religion is protected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Dictionaries just report common usage, so if that’s your source for this “actual definition” then in reality it means what we say it means. That can change.
Im not arguing that. I am arguing that societal definitions that are going to effect the population as a whole should not be based in religion. And since the dictionary is a common, widely accepted tool to define words, we should use that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So because you don’t understand it, it must be religion?
Dont understand what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
If there is a God then its’ all pretty simple, God makes the rules, you follow the rules or bad things happen.
And all the folks that dont believe in God, we just have to suck it up and go along?

I can hear the founders rolling in their graves if this is your stance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Although I think it’s open to debate if it’s considered a sin to have sex without the intent to procreate. I don’t recall anything saying “thou shalt not screw unless you’re trying to make a baby.”
Since inference is used extensively to make the correlation to 1 man and 1 woman... Im going to do the same regarding sex and the bible. Its usually only brought up when one wants/needs a child. However, I was wrong. Some research shows otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
You just can’t have sex with someone you’re not married to. (which by default outlaws gay sex if you can’t have gay marriage.) One of the religious dynamic duo would know better than me.
Irrelevant unless we are going to live by religious law. Which is against the rules which are laid out by our founders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
But what if there is no god? Where did these rules come from if there is no god?
SO because the rules exist, they had to come from God?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Why has nearly every human society ended up with some form of “marriage”?
Because "marry" means to join. Thats what people do when they get married.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I think these rules evolved with the human species. The human species requires many years to reach intellectual, physical, and sexual maturity. This lead to the need for some institution to try to keep parents together long enough to raise children to continue the species. Marriage evolved to fill that need.
I think you are all over the place on this one. According to the religious folk, marriage did not evolve. It was laid out with Adam and Eve.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Because homosexuals cannot reproduce, there was no need for them to be included.
Herein lies the problem. The ability to reproduce, or need to, is a religious issue. With the relatively small percentage of the population that make up the homosexuals, their ability or inability to reproduce is irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So what does this have to do with gay marriage today? Just that whether you believe in God or not, marriage is intrinsically linked to the survival of the species. It’s baked into our DNA. It’s hard wired into our brains. This, I believe, is why there is so much resistance to redefine marriage. The idea of male-female pair bonding is part of who we are as a species. That is not something that is easily changed.
Marriage is not needed to further society. Unless you are religious and abide by the tenet that sex out of wedlock is sin.

But again, not everyone is religious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
Yes, eventually, perhaps in another generation or 2 people will wonder what the fuss was about. They can wait until that happens, or shortcut the process and get more rights now by dropping the insistence on redefining “marriage”.
Marriage is already defined. Its the religious folk that wish to change it to "1 man, 1 woman."
opie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 05:21 PM   #439
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,379
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

. < my point ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~>you

Further discussion is futile.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25th, 2012, 05:32 PM   #440
Nuggets
I fix stuff!
 
Nuggets's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-15-06
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 13,376
iTrader: (13)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
. < my point ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~>you

Further discussion is futile.
Welcome to a religious discussion on GL4x4.
Nuggets is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:51 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright ©2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.45591 seconds with 51 queries