Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

Changing the dictionary definition of marriage

June 5, 2013

To the editor: Well, it looks like lots of hard work, perseverance and money to buy the media and lobby the politicians has finally paid off for homosexual activists....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(24)

rangeral

Jun-12-13 5:20 PM

mpm22 - never had a general election - this was rammed through by the DFL.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-12-13 3:10 PM

momtotwo - I disagree. I believe by not defining marriage, we are creating a slippery slope with unforseen consequences. I think we should engage in that debate and talk fully about what marriage is and isn't. Why do SSM supporters refuse share forward perspective on marriage?

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

momtotwo

Jun-12-13 2:43 PM

So let them come forward 56258 with the same organized effort and reasoning that was used by advocates of SSM. Until then, the what if's are moot.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-12-13 12:45 PM

You are correct that I am offering perverted reasoning, but incorrect about self-respect - far off. Why do you choose to attack me instead of approaching the question with legitamcy.

There will be a point when a group of oranized folks who really do hold a new/unique sexual preference to be true and important will come forward. They will dismiss you with the guise of bigotry, etc.

My point is that we should entertain the debate before it happens. Ask folks 10 years ago if SSM would become law - they might react like you have. I thought marriage was defined - I was wrong. I see no avoiding marriage becoming something that is not definable - one person to self, a group of people, people and animals, fathers/sons, etc.

4 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jun-12-13 11:18 AM

56258, your sustained line of perverted reasoning adds nothing to the debate but does reveal a personal lack of self-respect.

10 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-12-13 9:28 AM

hartman75 - you are a beast-aphobe and a bigot. I was born this way. Why deny me the same rights as you? I am human, please lift this injustice! In what way would giving me the right to marry animals cause you any harm?

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Jun-11-13 10:09 PM

hartman, I like my definition of SSM best - then anyone can get benefits whether they remain solitary, hook up with one or more people, throw in some pets or pet rocks - then you would have your perfect society - no bias, no racism unless you are against granite or taconite and the same benefits for everyone.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jun-11-13 6:35 PM

"Our society has benefited EACH time human and civil rights have been extended to those who were previously deprived of that right, whether based on race, creed or sexual preference."

Perhaps I should have used sexual "orientation" instead of preference. Then 56258 would not need to rely on the perverted notions generated by his/her little mind instead of looking up the dictionary meaning of "sexual preference". Too bad, he/she could have prevented from making a fool of him/herself.

sex·u·al pref·er·ence (sek'shu-al pref'er-ens) The preference one shows by having a sexual interest in members of the same, opposite, or either sex.

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-11-13 5:10 PM

Just promise me equality hartman75 on the basis of my right of sexual preference. After all, eliminating this injustice – that of depriving me the right to ‘love’ an animal - will be in the betterment of society as you indicated. People like you scoffed at SSM years ago. Now you scoff at this. Please quit your bigotry and support me in redefining marriage of two living organisms, after all it won’t affect you.

4 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jun-11-13 4:00 PM

"I notice you never comment at night or on the weekend so you must be using your employer's internet access and time for your replies." What leads you to believe I work for a living rangeral?

"My comment had nothing to do with SSM, Hartman." Gee, my bad Merritt. Why WOULD I think your comment had ANYTHING to do with SSM, especially since the letter and subsequent comments, including yours, discuss elements of SSM. (please note my sarcasm)

"Why deprive those whose sexual preference is animals? " Well at least know the predilections of 56258. You'll need to discuss that with rangeral - he's the only other person who's ever brought up that topic.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Jun-11-13 2:25 PM

SSM could also stand for single sex marriage, where you marry yourself and get to file as married. And they call this state the Land of the Loons.

3 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Jun-11-13 11:45 AM

My comment had nothing to do with SSM, Hartman. The fact that you have such high rates of "divorce, adultery, co-habitation, having children out of wedlock and spousal abuse" is evidence that marriage has been devalued in this culture. I have my ideas about why, but I'm not in the mood to look up peer-reviewed articles to make my point.

2 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-10-13 1:31 PM

Sorry, didn't realize that would be filtered out. Both words are the same: beast ality

2 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-10-13 1:30 PM

hartman75 - Would you suggest we no longer make it illegal to engage in ***********? Why deprive those whose sexual preference is animals? Your comments certainly make the case that allowing *********** (sexual preference) will make a benefit society.

3 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

Jun-10-13 1:22 PM

Quite the contrary, hartman. The door is open for every type of coupling and your logic is quite uninspiring.

I notice you never comment at night or on the weekend so you must be using your employer's internet access and time for your replies.

4 Agrees | 15 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

Jun-10-13 11:49 AM

"Bottom line is that marriage in this culture has been devalued."

Quite the contrary Merritt. The fact marriage is legal for both heterosexual and same sex couples ADDS value to society and enhances the concept of marriage. Our society has benefited EACH time human and civil rights have been extended to those who were previously deprived of that right, whether based on race, creed or sexual preference.

15 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EmptyPockets

Jun-07-13 3:55 PM

I agree 100%

0 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

Jun-07-13 3:54 PM

God Bless children that are born into a situation where their parents are not in a stable, committed, loving, nuturing marriage that lasts their lifetime.

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Jun-07-13 3:42 PM

Bottom line is that marriage in this culture has been devalued.

5 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Jun-07-13 3:42 PM

Agreed, but I don't think that solves our problems. Our problems stem from moving away from the church's standard of marriage. If you switch to civil unions, we'll still have the same problems under a different name unless people have such a need to be "married" that they follow the church's standards to do so.

2 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EmptyPockets

Jun-07-13 3:22 PM

Meritt, I was coming from the church's viewpoint of marriage, not the strict legal definition. Personally I'd like to see Churches define marriage and the state recognize civil unions. A church recognized marriage would be an automatic civil union and the state could then create laws on who else may enter into a civil union (if the state so chooses). Clear as mud...but I think this would separate church & state and respect the wishes of both sides.

15 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

Jun-07-13 3:09 PM

Those comments don't make sense to me Empty? Which of those problems is against the law? If marriage is merely a legal contract, what is in decline. The problems you describe would be a decline in marriage if you were using the church's definition of marriage, but not the state's. If what you described was against the law, I would see your point. Unfortunately, I think you are not understanding the definition(s) of marriage.

3 Agrees | 14 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EmptyPockets

Jun-07-13 8:57 AM

The writer seems to think the only threat to marriage today is the gay marriage issue. It seems to me that there are several other threats he fails to mention such as divorce, adultery, co-habitation, having children out of wedlock and spousal abuse. If a person feels that the gay marriage issue is the biggest threat to traditional marriage I think they're overlooking the vast majority of the recent decline. I think some people focus so much on blaming the gay marriager issue is because it takes focus off of their own sins and temptations. I've read the bible and I'm not going to throw stones at anybody. If a church wants my respect for doing God's work just read today's front page on what Swede Home is doing.

18 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rialex

Jun-06-13 3:04 PM

I am sure there is an argument or two or twelve hiding in all of that verbiage, but I'm not entirely sure. I am hoping the author, or one of his defenders, can provide a concise summary of his claim.

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 24 of 24 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web