It’s Time to Formally Declare America A Christian Nation.

[Mashmont]

Children were never a requirement or condition of marriage. At least not in Pennsylvania or Nebraska where I currently live. I don't think there's any state that backward that would have that type of stipulation. More bad news for you. Home> In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace. Could this be the reason your frantically trying to come up with these crazy ideas, a last hurray, a frantic need for a revival of some sort. Good luck with that, you see it's your attitude, people don't want to be that ignorant anymore, they know better. And none of this s*** you're proposing is going to go anywhere. Please get some help, you need it. I'm afraid your neurosis is becoming a full-blown psychosis. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Once again, please get some help.

I never said children were a requirement. I said the definition of marriage presupposed children prior to 2015. Y'all leftists got rid of the children part to suit your perversion.

 

[Stann]

Let me once again quote the 2003 edition of Webster's Third International Dictionary: marriage: n. 1. a special type of union between a man and a woman for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.

What dictionary is that definition in I'd like to look it up.

 

[Mashmont]

I plugged marriage definition into my phone here and what came up was 1. The legally or formally recognized Union of two people as partners in a personal relationship ( historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman ). That's all it said, and absolutely no mention of children or the ability to produce them as terms in a marriage contract.

Well no crap Sherlock. Your definition is after 2015.

 

[Mashmont]

What dictionary is that definition in I'd like to look it up.

I have a hardback volume here. MW 2003 Third International

 

[WinterBorn]

I never said children were a requirement. I said the definition of marriage presupposed children prior to 2015. Y'all leftists got rid of the children part to suit your perversion.

You said:

No matter how hard you wish and hope, two gay guys will never be able to make a child. Neither can two lesbos. And that's what the definition of marriage entails. Doesn't matter what you add or want, you can't alter the basic biological fact.

That sure sounds like you saying they were a requirement.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have a hardback volume here. MW 2003 Third International

So we just have to trust your word that it says what you claimed. lol

 

[Stann]

I have a hardback volume here. MW 2003 Third International

I couldn't get that to come up, but then I asked a question, when did the first definition of marriage include gay marriage and that happened in 2009 in the United States earlier in Europe. The world has moved on, I'm sorry you're having difficulty accepting the changes.

 

[AsherN]

Very nice of you to voice your opinion, but it has no relevance to the facts.
Prior to 2015, marriage was defined a special type of union between a man and a woman for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family. Now leftwingers suddenly wiped out the notion of making a family.

Define family. 2 same sex marrying are making a family. Children have nothing to do with it. are a man and a womon, both childless, marrying OK? are they a family?

 

[Stann]

You said:


That sure sounds like you saying they were a requirement.

Actually two gay guys that are married are allowed to adopt. Many of them have done so, and and there are lots of women out there who understand that love is love they are willing to become surrogates to carry a gay man's child. So in a roundabout way gays have met your requirement for marriage. Or is there another reason you don't want gays to marry and attempt to be happy like everyone else.

 

[Stann]

Define family. 2 same sex marrying are making a family. Children have nothing to do with it. are a man and a womon, both childless, marrying OK? are they a family?

On the contrary, gays, especially lesbians, are adopting more children than heterosexual couples are. Sorry they don't fit your definition of family but they definitely are family.

 

[Stann]

Well no crap Sherlock. Your definition is after 2015.

Dictionaries reflect the present not the past. The world has moved on I guess it's forgotten about you and your petty concerns.

 

[AsherN]

On the contrary, gays, especially lesbians, are adopting more children than heterosexual couples are. Sorry they don't fit your definition of family but they definitely are family.

Question was to Mashie. My definition of family includes same sex couple and childless couples.

 

[Mashmont]

You said:


That sure sounds like you saying they were a requirement.

presupposes but not requires. I said that once, right?

 

[AsherN]

presupposes but not requires. I said that once, right?

So if does not require, what is truly your objection to same sex marriage?

 

[WinterBorn]

presupposes but not requires. I said that once, right?

Yes, there was the assumption that a married couple would have children. Many couldn't. And many simply decided not to have them.

 

[Mashmont]

Children were never a requirement or condition of marriage. At least not in Pennsylvania or Nebraska where I currently live. I don't think there's any state that backward that would have that type of stipulation. More bad news for you. Home> In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace. Could this be the reason your frantically trying to come up with these crazy ideas, a last hurray, a frantic need for a revival of some sort. Good luck with that, you see it's your attitude, people don't want to be that ignorant anymore, they know better. And none of this s*** you're proposing is going to go anywhere. Please get some help, you need it. I'm afraid your neurosis is becoming a full-blown psychosis. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Once again, please get some help.

Nobody said they were. For the third time, the MW definition of marriage prior to 2015 presupposed children but didn't require them

 

[Mashmont]

So if does not require, what is truly your objection to same sex marriage?

It's not a marriage. Marriage implies the general capability of producing children. Two men can't do that.

 

[Stann]

Question was to Mashie. My definition of family includes same sex couple and childless couples.

I know and understand that, I've been following your posts. I was hoping to add to the conversation and information.

 

[WinterBorn]

Nobody said they were. For the third time, the MW definition of marriage prior to 2015 presupposed children but didn't require them

Then same sex couples are fine marrying. And they CAN have children, via a surrogate or a sperm donor.

 

[Mashmont]

Yes, there was the assumption that a married couple would have children. Many couldn't. And many simply decided not to have them.

Bingo. There you go. That's what I've been saying.