Clipmarks
Sign Up  Install  Learn More  Login 
jmjonessfollowshare
1
6-6-2008 7:46 AM
235 views
jmjoness says:
Since the majority supports civil unions, why aren't homosexuals striving for these, instead of imposing their will on the masses by redefining our traditional definition of marriage?
5 Comments   | Add a Comment
6-6-2008 7:51 AM
jmjoness
srry the image isn't working, you'll have to go to the site and see the chart for yourself.
6-9-2008 12:20 AM
cmstratton
Why did African American people want to be able to sit anywhere they wanted to on the bus - they already were able to get a seat? Why did women want the right to vote - they already could influence their husbands' votes?

The "traditional" definition of marriage is discriminatory - that's why we're fighting to change it. The same as how laws were passed allowing couples of different racial backgrounds to get married. This is no different.

The trouble is when the "traditional" definition of marriage becomes more about religion than law. Legally, all marriage does is combine the two lives of individuals. Why shouldn't 2 men or 2 women be able to join their lives? The reason right now is b...
read more»
6-9-2008 11:11 AM
jmjoness
The traditional definition of marriage is only discriminatory against "homosexual unions", not the people in the unions. But what I was talking about is why don't homosexuals fight to have those rights within civil unions?? Especially in California, where civil unions are already given many of the same priveledges in marriage. Why do they want to further impose themselves by fighting to have marriage redefined? And notice they can only do it with those 4 judge's opinion on the constitution, I don't think most people find traditional marriage discriminatory. And as for modeling the homosexual agenda after the civil rights movements, I think there's alot of flaws in that argument.
6-9-2008 11:13 AM
jmjoness
My biggest problem is this, when the approval rating of the war in Iraq falls below the 50% mark (meaning that the majority of people oppose it), then they say that "the will of the people has spoken out against the war", and nobody even thinks twice about the opinion of the minority. But in this case it's turned the other way around. Why is that??
6-10-2008 9:59 PM
papananook
Circular logic Jm. You don't make sense. However Cmstratton does.
Login to Comment.  Not a member yet? Sign up
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
New from the makers of Clipmarks:  Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!

OK