I leave them alone. Is it me who is imposing my beliefs on them, or is it them imposing their beliefs on me? Try to remember that its not I who defined marriage.
Yes. You did not define marriage. So why do you have any investment as to what the definition is?
This was established long before your great-great-great-great-great grandfather was a twinkle in his daddy's eye. Therefore, the imposition is all on their side of the table. So who isn't leaving who alone?
Which kind of marriage are you talking about? 'Cause the customs and practices tend to differ from place to place. (I'm told that there were some people who had/have MORE THAN ONE SPOUSE!!!) Oh, and it would seem that you are saying that gay people should not be allowed to be married because they would be disturbing someone's great-great-great-great-great grandfather's daddy's twinkle's conception of marriage. I'm sure this great-great-great-great-great grandfather's daddy's twinkle was a great-great-great-great thinker, but really... there's no need to hold their opinion in such high regard.
Am I not afforded the right to speak for my beliefs?
Oh baby are you ever!
Is this not the age tolerance where we all can believe as we see fit?
We sure can!
If homosexuals want to be together, that's on them. You won't see me flouting and jeering as they walk hand in hand down the street.
How noble!
If they want to establish their own kind of legal union, take it up with the courts. But please don't redefine marriage to suit an agenda.
But what if they just want to call it marriage? Why shouldn't they? After all, we could just re-write the secular laws as to what constitutes marriage and that would not affect your religious marriage at all, eh?
It annoys me that the gay marriage debate is always cast as some sort-of symantical issue. The definitions of words change
all the time because language is a fluid, dynamic system. No one complained when faggot stopped meaning a bundle of sticks...
Edited by docpotato, : No reason given.