| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Kathy" |
| Date: |
01 Jul 2004 09:37:51 AM |
| Object: |
New definition for second marriage |
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
.
|
|
| User: "Dan Lowe" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 06:55:00 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Dan Lowe" <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message
news:oxZEc.190$xd6.131@newsfe3-gui...
kathryn wrote:
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
Yea, at least here in the UK they're not /as bad/ as the American
republicans!
Dan
Probably cause it's more associated with christianity than capitalism
in America
Yup :) We have less religion because we have more history, I've decided.
we're used to crazy religions, we had the roman/greek gods, the celts,
the pagans and more... we in europe know to take religion with more than
a pinch of salt! Certain americans look to religion as their history!
Dan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 11:44:22 PM |
|
|
Dan Lowe <dan@deletethisbinlaid.com> wrote in message news:<oxZEc.190$xd6.131@newsfe3-gui>...
kathryn wrote:
Conservatives are killjoys aren't they.
Yea, at least here in the UK they're not /as bad/ as the American
republicans!
Dan
Well, you sent the worst of the lot over on the Mayflower - the Puritans.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 01:23:04 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with someone
else?
The religious bigots argue that, since same-sex marriage does not meet Biblical
command, it should be prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can not get
it prohibited, should not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all the
attendant rights, protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Now then. Divorce does not meet Biblical command, and there is far more, much
clearer objection in the Bible to divorce than there is to homosexuality.
Therefore, applying the above exampled "logic", divorce should likewise be
prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can not get it prohibited, should
not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all the attendant rights,
protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Does that help?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 02:03:39 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:40E45688.3486C920@serv.net...
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that
a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage.
I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second
marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The religious bigots argue that, since same-sex marriage does not meet
Biblical
command, it should be prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can
not get
it prohibited, should not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all
the
attendant rights, protections and responsibilities that come with
marriage.
Now then. Divorce does not meet Biblical command, and there is far more,
much
clearer objection in the Bible to divorce than there is to homosexuality.
Therefore, applying the above exampled "logic", divorce should likewise be
prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can not get it prohibited,
should
not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all the attendant rights,
protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Does that help?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
Actually I just didn't read the post properly. If I had I would of, I would
of got it straight away
Yes
I am a moron!
Kathryn
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:31:07 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:03:39 +0000, kathryn wrote:
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:40E45688.3486C920@serv.net...
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that
a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage.
I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second
marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The religious bigots argue that, since same-sex marriage does not meet
Biblical
command, it should be prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can
not get
it prohibited, should not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all
the
attendant rights, protections and responsibilities that come with
marriage.
Now then. Divorce does not meet Biblical command, and there is far more,
much
clearer objection in the Bible to divorce than there is to homosexuality.
Therefore, applying the above exampled "logic", divorce should likewise be
prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can not get it prohibited,
should
not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all the attendant rights,
protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Does that help?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
Actually I just didn't read the post properly. If I had I would of, I would
of got it straight away
Yes
I am a moron!
If you're a moron (you're not-everyone 'drops the ball' from time to time)
I'd shudder at what that makes Carol T. (A -666 rated moron?)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 02:14:42 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
Actually I just didn't read the post properly. If I had I would of, I would
of got it straight away
I realized that when I saw your responses to the responses of others. :-)
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desdinova" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 01:28:51 PM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:40E45688.3486C920@serv.net...
kathryn wrote:
"Kathy" <k.knight@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that
a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage.
I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second
marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Ah right so any woman who is beaten, raped and generally abused by her
first
spouse, or any man who's wife screws every man in the country can never
legally get out of that marriage or have a chance at happiness with
someone
else?
The religious bigots argue that, since same-sex marriage does not meet
Biblical
command, it should be prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can
not get
it prohibited, should not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all
the
attendant rights, protections and responsibilities that come with
marriage.
Now then. Divorce does not meet Biblical command, and there is far more,
much
clearer objection in the Bible to divorce than there is to homosexuality.
Therefore, applying the above exampled "logic", divorce should likewise be
prohibited by civil law and, where the fundies can not get it prohibited,
should
not be dignified with the name of "marriage" and all the attendant rights,
protections and responsibilities that come with marriage.
Does that help?
The religious bigots seem to have selective amnesia when it comes to the
subject of divorce. It doesn't hurt my marriage or anyone else's if gays
want to marry.
--
Desdinova aa #2182
EAC Director of Separation of Church and Brain
There are none so blind as those who view life filtered
through the stained glass of church windows.
"Christianity has such a contemptible opinion of human
nature that it does not believe a man can tell the truth
unless frightened by a belief in God. No lower opinion
of the human race has ever been expressed."
-- Robert Green Ingersoll
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 10:18:24 AM |
|
|
In article <3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Kathy
says...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh my - That'll go over like a lead balloon ;)
--------------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
03 Jul 2004 11:03:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:18:24 +0000 in episode
<4XVEc.7207$H4.381@www.newsranger.com> we saw our hero Robibnikoff
<nospam@newsranger.com>:
In article <3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Kathy says...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only,
that a same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a
marriage. I think they should go a step further. Marriage is also
defined (and vowed before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore,
a second marriage before the death of your spouse should *not* be called
a marriage. Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for
gay marriages, I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh my - That'll go over like a lead balloon ;)
Better yet, let's go back to the *true* meaning of marriage.
You know, the economic union of families arranged by the parents you
didn't have any say in. This "romantic love" thing is just a modern
concoction. Damn LIEbruls!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"I think it's the worst kept secret in Washington.
That everybody - everybody I talk to in Washington
has known and fully knows what [the neo-conservative]
agenda was and what they were trying to do."
[Retired General Anthony Zinni]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 05:17:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:18:24 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Kathy
says...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh my - That'll go over like a lead balloon ;)
Yet totally true. A marriage is defined in the bible, and proceeded the US civil contract
by thousands of years.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 01:22:23 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 17:17:52 -0500, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 15:18:24 GMT, Robibnikoff <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote:
In article <3lVEc.4451$4gV.1985@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, Kathy
says...
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh my - That'll go over like a lead balloon ;)
Yet totally true. A marriage is defined in the bible, and proceeded the US civil contract
by thousands of years.
So why do you hate Ron and Nancy Reagan so much?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -859 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:08:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:22:23 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Yet totally true. A marriage is defined in the bible, and proceeded the US civil contract
by thousands of years.
So why do you hate Ron and Nancy Reagan so much?
They and I agree with God.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
03 Jul 2004 03:35:19 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:bhnae05ianc0gc710o7udjljqosdrv72do@4ax.com...
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 23:22:23 -0700, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com>
wrote:
Yet totally true. A marriage is defined in the bible, and proceeded the
US civil contract
by thousands of years.
So why do you hate Ron and Nancy Reagan so much?
They and I agree with God.
Ron doesn't agree with anyone anymore.
He's ceased to exist !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
04 Jul 2004 06:20:47 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004 21:35:19 +0100, "Jez" <iced_spear@AwaySPAMdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
Yet totally true. A marriage is defined in the bible, and proceeded the
US civil contract
by thousands of years.
So why do you hate Ron and Nancy Reagan so much?
They and I agree with God.
Ron doesn't agree with anyone anymore.
He's ceased to exist !
He agreed with me up to 3 weeks or so ago.
duke
*****
I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear
it now. When he comes, the Holy Spirit will declare
to you the things that are coming. John 16:12-15.
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
01 Jul 2004 11:27:57 AM |
|
|
Kathy wrote:
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh, but THAT is different. Divorce and remarriage is nowhere near the threat to
marriage as is homosexuality. [insert snort-and-eyeroll here]
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is
tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering, http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Solomon Kozanski" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
02 Jul 2004 08:42:10 AM |
|
|
"Gregory Gadow" <techbear@serv.net> wrote in message
news:40E43B8C.8B96A40E@serv.net...
Kathy wrote:
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage",
because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and
vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay
marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Oh, but THAT is different. Divorce and remarriage is nowhere near the
threat to
marriage as is homosexuality. [insert snort-and-eyeroll here]
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
the real threat to marriage isnt homosexual idiots who want to get married;
on the contrary, they will only reinforce that sad, ancient nonsense.
the real threat to marriage is people like myself who grant such nonsense
absolutely no validity whatsoever!
--
Keep Jesus OUT of Government and IN Hell where he belongs!
Brought to you courtesy of Kozanski's Morgue & Grill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: New definition for second marriage |
16 Jul 2004 12:04:22 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:37:51 +0000, Kathy wrote:
Conservatives are so concerned about the definition of "Marriage", because
their religion defines it as the union of a man and a woman only, that a
same sex union should only be called a "civil union" not a marriage. I
think they should go a step further. Marriage is also defined (and vowed
before their god) to be a life long union. Therefore, a second marriage
before the death of your spouse should *not* be called a marriage.
Since the term "civil union" would appear to be reserved for gay marriages,
I suggest the term "Civilly legalized adultery".
Kathy aa #1802
RRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Love the 'CLA' term.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
