To: nickcarraway
If there's no clear definition of who can be married, then marriage means nothing.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
2 posted on
10/25/2008 8:17:22 AM PDT by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: nickcarraway
Do they use the formerly good word gay corrupted
by queers to mean types of abnormal sex.
Just because a person can have perverted sex with
the same sex, with an animal or with a tree stump
has nothing to do with marriage.
It can only corrupt the meaning of to marry or marriage.
3 posted on
10/25/2008 8:22:10 AM PDT by
HuntsvilleTxVeteran
(Obama and ITS thugs are made paranoid by Sarahnoia. (stole from molly_jack2007))
To: nickcarraway
To me, I am just pissed off that a rotten judge can rule on matters that does not concern the court. The people have spoken before and who is this nitwit to contradict the will of the people. Just goes to speak of the ignorance of liberal judges who think their bench is a throne of a supreme being.
4 posted on
10/25/2008 8:28:47 AM PDT by
Logical me
(Oh, well!!!)
To: nickcarraway
If a man can marry a man and a woman marry a woman, why can't a man marry two women? Or three? If the definition is changed, why can't 15 people get married? And then, there is a judge somewhere who is going to allow this --
8 posted on
10/25/2008 9:10:45 AM PDT by
doug from upland
(8 million views of .HILLARY! UNCENSORED - put some ice on it, witch)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson