There goes Canada (**edited** Marriage)

DBibeau855 wrote: Dune wrote: I will retract what I said. I am not AGAINST religion. As that seems to be too much of a forceful word. I am atheist, so I don't AGREE with religion. Heh.. Ile rewrite the post i deleated when i read what you wrote. Hashi, he isnt really against religion, you are the one that is against something here. And you are being far more abrasive than Dune. Its a trend ive notice with people that have "religion" And for the record, i work in a church.

  Well fine then.  I don't agree with homosexuals!  What do you consider against anyway?  Ever heard the saying "You're either with me or against me"?  If it is black and white, then anyone who doesn't agree is against and those that do are for.  Get technical for all I care.  I don't go around and tell homosexuals "You can't do that", and Dune doesn't say "You can't go to church!", so in my book that puts us exactly even, but on opposite sides of the argument.

Regardless of whether or not marriage is a term you religious people go by, it is the same term that everyone (atheist and homosexual) go by. Get over it. If that is the conventially used term, then so be it. I refuse to call it a "civil union" just because people of faith are too insecure to allow those different from them from entering a bond of love in the same fashion. No new format, nothing that makes it different than the rest of the population. It should be the same regardless of who you are.

  Why do you keep bringing up the fact that you are an athiest?  Your attempts to relate athiest marriages to homosexual marriages is idiotic.  It says NOWHERE that Christians are the only ones allowed to be married.  What it does say is that marriage is between a man and a woman. 

BTW:  They could say they are "lifepartners" or whatever.  All your argument has come down to is that atheist marry all the time and that homosexuals can't literaly say they are "married".  Those are trivial and shouldn't even matter.

Dune wrote: Wrong, the fact is you are too "proud" to let two men marry. The bible may say that it is for a man and a woman; however, as time and tradition changes, why should those who do not follow the book give a crap on what it says. If I can get married, then two men can also because we do not accept god into our lives. Marriage is also for christians, as it is for a man and a woman. It is the same, as I could care less what any christian thinks, and a homosexual shouldn't pay attention to anyone debating the semantics of a book so out dated that it too needs a new edition.

  It isn't just the Bible.  It is every dictionary ever made.  It is the DEFFINITION of a word.  It is what the word means.  The stupid thing is trying to change the word because YOU are to pround to accept something new.  If I wanted "blue" to mean "red" tommorow, I couldn't do it (at least not on a national or world scale).  You are trying to CHANGE things to accomodate growing practices.  I am trying to add something to accomodate for growing practices.

 Ohh well. It is useless arguing with you.  Your mind was made up on the day you confronted this issue.  This  is why I can't stand it when liberals call others "closed minded", because liberals have just as many closed minded people.  I was just trying to help, but if you think that creating something that SHOULD make everyone happy (I am giving everyone what they want besides a name.  WOuld you complain if you wanted a brand named product, but you got the exact same item with ONLY a different brand name?).  I have to get some sleep.  Try not to take too many sucker punches at my views while I sleep and then wake up to do something productive with my life.