Listening a few brief moments

[r3020]

---

@Canuck_2 wrote:

---

@r3020 wrote:

Tell me Canuck, would you vote for a muslim?

---

Sure, if she or he had a good platform and sounded like their head was on straight.

---

Would you consider a muslim candidate who supports marriage as being between a man and a woman as having his/her head on straight?

[Canuck_2]

---

@r3020 wrote:

Would you consider a muslim candidate who supports marriage as being between a man and a woman as having his/her head on straight?

---

If you mean at the exclusion of same sex marriage I would think the same of them as anyone else who discriminates.

Quit trying to blame this on one religion over another.

Makes no differences what religion a person has it is wrong to discriminate kust because some people are put together differently than others.

You do not want to marry someone of the same sex you do not have to.

Now why would you make someone who does not want to marry someone of the other sex do so?

So now quit trying to stop other people from marrying a partner that will make them happy.

[r3020]

Because an man plus a man or a woman plus a woman is not a marriage, it is a partnership. A marriage is a convenant between a man, a woman, and God. Men and women can live any way they wish but do not try to change the definition of marriage.

[Nebrfarmr]

Exactly.  You can have a civil union, or whatever you want to call it, and give full legal rights/priveliges/responsibilities to any group you feel you want to get the law to recognize, but don't change the definition of the word.

[Canuck_2]

---

@Nebrfarmr wrote:

Exactly.  You can have a civil union, or whatever you want to call it, and give full legal rights/priveliges/responsibilities to any group you feel you want to get the law to recognize, but don't change the definition of the word.

---

BUT that horse left the barn a long time ago and you forgot to hitch a cart to it or even put a saddle on it.

Too late to throw out civil union now as an option which never was available.

[Nebrfarmr]

But, if you were to introduce a bill, giving full legal rights to homosexuals, which could includ civil unions, I would support it.

I didn't mean to say that civil unions were legal everywhere, I meant that I'd support them if they come up, but I stop at changing the definition of the word 'marriage'.  I have seen too many unintended consequences, when definitions are allowed to mean what you want them to mean.

[Canuck_2]

---

@Nebrfarmr wrote:

But, if you were to introduce a bill, giving full legal rights to homosexuals, which could includ civil unions, I would support it.

I didn't mean to say that civil unions were legal everywhere, I meant that I'd support them if they come up, but I stop at changing the definition of the word 'marriage'.  I have seen too many unintended consequences, when definitions are allowed to mean what you want them to mean.

---

But the definition of marriage is not limited to a union between a man and a woman.

Lots of uses of the word to descibe other unions not including a man and a woman.

[Nebrfarmr]

If you want to stretch the meaning of the word, you can also talk about how tasty the 'marriage' of chocolate and peanut butter, but that does not mean I support marrying Reese's cups.