Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kajingawd

So you ARE taking the position that a couple who can't have children shouldn't marry?


29 posted on 11/30/2005 2:17:16 PM PST by Sols
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Sols

nope...taking the position againts gay marriage.

am just explaining what the effects could be over time.


54 posted on 11/30/2005 2:21:15 PM PST by kajingawd (" happy with stone underhead, let Heaven and Earth go about their changes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Sols

Marriage has a meaning. The union of one man and one woman in a lifetime, monogamous relationship. If gays want a similar kind of relationship, that may be fine, but it cannot be called marriage, as that dilutes the meaning of the word. You could call a tricycle a car, but a car is a four wheeled, motorized vehicle. If you call a tricycle a car, you have diluted the meaning of the word "car."

Then there is the "where does it end" argument. If 2 gays can marry, why not 3? 4? 100? How about a brother and sister marrying? a whole family could be "married"? What logically would stop it? Just my unvarnished thoughts.


67 posted on 11/30/2005 2:22:49 PM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson