Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

LickmyASSHOLE · 03-17-2004, 02:31 PM

Marriage has changed sooooo much throughout its history. To claim that it must be preserved just because you like its current definition isn't really justification.

I never said I like it's current condition.
The fact is that morals and principles have been in decline and decay drastically over the last 40 years. The fact that more people are prone to give up on marriage today doesn't change the original concept of marriage which has always been between a man and a woman

Saying the equivalent of "it is justified because it is just the way we do things" isn't scoring you any points for open mindedness either.

Changing and redefining the definition of a precendent made for the majority of a population (96%)
and allowing the 4% to dictate a new defintion of what constitutes marriage surely isn't justifiable.

At some point marriage's precedent was one that didn't allow interracial couples to wed. Marriage was defined as something between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, etc. Tradition wasn't a good reason to keep the status quo then, and i don't see how it is a good reason now.

Really ?
show me where this is written ?
Once again, you confuse peoples racial bias or another conflict in with the subject.
Nice redirection ploy attempt.
But it failed.
At one time black people weren't even considered intelligent.
I fail to see how this addresses the union between a man and a woman ?

btw, biblical morals are fine. Being a bigot who can only express one's bigotry by hiding behind one's god is cowardly. SO now you've resorted to insults and name calling.
That's very witty and intelligent.

nevermind, he got hisself banned so he didn't have to attempt to challenge my keen intellect and sharp witticism. Yep. *sigh*

and now you think that makes you correct ?
more intelligent ?
or some kind of winner ?

you're funny

.

03-17-2004, 02:31 PM	#66 (permalink)
LickmyASSHOLE Banned	Marriage has changed sooooo much throughout its history. To claim that it must be preserved just because you like its current definition isn't really justification. I never said I like it's current condition. The fact is that morals and principles have been in decline and decay drastically over the last 40 years. The fact that more people are prone to give up on marriage today doesn't change the original concept of marriage which has always been between a man and a woman Saying the equivalent of "it is justified because it is just the way we do things" isn't scoring you any points for open mindedness either. Changing and redefining the definition of a precendent made for the majority of a population (96%) and allowing the 4% to dictate a new defintion of what constitutes marriage surely isn't justifiable. At some point marriage's precedent was one that didn't allow interracial couples to wed. Marriage was defined as something between a white man and a white woman or a black man and a black woman, etc. Tradition wasn't a good reason to keep the status quo then, and i don't see how it is a good reason now. Really ? show me where this is written ? Once again, you confuse peoples racial bias or another conflict in with the subject. Nice redirection ploy attempt. But it failed. At one time black people weren't even considered intelligent. I fail to see how this addresses the union between a man and a woman ? btw, biblical morals are fine. Being a bigot who can only express one's bigotry by hiding behind one's god is cowardly. SO now you've resorted to insults and name calling. That's very witty and intelligent. nevermind, he got hisself banned so he didn't have to attempt to challenge my keen intellect and sharp witticism. Yep. sigh and now you think that makes you correct ? more intelligent ? or some kind of winner ? you're funny . Last edited by LickmyASSHOLE; 03-17-2004 at 02:34 PM..