Carl in Michigan
Diamond Member
- Aug 15, 2016
- 56,557
- 41,477
- 3,615
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What did that video have to do with same sex marriage?
I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?
It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.
Someone has a fixation on gay couples getting married......for.......reasons........What did that video have to do with same sex marriage?
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?
If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!
Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.
* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.
* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.
Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?
If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!
Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.
* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.
* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.
Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.
Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?
It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.
Civil marriage is about a covenant with god? So those who don't believe in a god can't get married?It's not a "vow". It's a covenant with God witnessed by family and friends........or Satan..... god of The Fruiloops gang.
Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?
Leave it to so-called RW heteros to be all about the sex.I missed the " Now I pronounce you bottom and bottom" part ?
These people are incredibly obsessed with sex. Sometimes I think that Americans should have a National Sex Day, on which everyone goes out and has sex with whomever and however they want, with the stipulation that they promise to shut up about it for the next 364 days and go on to other things more important than who's zoomin' who.
Amazing insight on marriage from Jordan Peterson. It is not a vow to be taken lightly
Dear Death Angel Montrovant WinterBorn
Given that people do not even agree on "physical gender" vs. "gender identity" determined internally by someone's personality,
is it any wonder that people don't agree on "marriage"?
If we can't even agree how to define "man" or "woman"
of course the same clashing perspectives are going to
view marriage differently as well!
Another reason to keep marriage and "gender identity"
out of the state, and just stick to NEUTRAL definitions we can agree
on and determine by genetics and science.
* instead of marriage which we don't all agree on, have the
state laws stick with CIVIL UNIONS and guardianship/estate
financial and legal contracts that have nothing to do with social relations that are not govt business.
* instead of arguing over INTERNAL identity of male/female and LGBT
Let's all agree to consider those FAITH BASED affiliations and process
that again is not government's business to define and protect each case.
All FAITH BASED beliefs and creeds should be recognized as individual
free choice under the First Amendment and protected equally under the
Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights against discrimination by CREED.
Instead of arguing how to DEFINE these different beliefs or CREEDS,
let's just agree to respect people's choices and leave these OUT OF GOVT.
While I think it would have been better for government to stay out of marriage (or at least not make it such an ingrained government institution), I think that ship has long since sailed. It would be difficult to the point of being unfeasible to get government out of marriage at this point. To do so would take a gradual change over years, IMO.