CDZ Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

[JakeStarkey]

What is not debatable is the nonsensical statement "Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman." The OP has been shown hundreds of times on the Board to be false. The OP poster has been shown hundreds of times to be merely an opinionist who pretends to be an authority.

More importantly, will the poster be willing to uphold the law after the SCOTUS ruling later this month.

 

[bodecea]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

Keep trying to convince yourself, eh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

Keep trying to convince yourself, eh?

ROFLMNAO....

Adorable...

(Reader, it's worth noting that not a single example of a single culture in human history that accepted sexual deviancy which so much as lived to tell the story, let alone one that sustained viability and measured any discernible success... .

But they've got a great reason for not listing such, as such does not exist. Because viability is never a consequence of rejecting reality.)

 

[PratchettFan]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This as a result of the natural design which established the physiological standard regarding human sexuality.

Wherein Nature provided two distinct, but complimenting genders, each respectively design to join with the other, not only physically, but emotionally; which defines marriage through that default standard. Providing that; as noted in the title of this thread: Marriage is the joining of two distinct bodies, into one sustainable body... which is essential to the propagation of the species and as the nucleus, is essential to the viability of nothing less than civilization itself.

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

 

[PratchettFan]

.No, it isn't. Marriage is a legal contract. It is nothing more than that.

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The meaning of "word" is immaterial when one signs a contract.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

How does a legal contract, become separated from natural law?

Do you understand what a Legal Contract is?

It is an extension of one's sacred word, wherein individuals promise before witnesses, not the least of which is God, to do certain things, for which they expect certain things in return. It is set in writing, purely to provide for the means to be made legally whole, in the event that one party violates their oath, breaking their word sworn before witnesses, not the least of which is God.

Legal Contracts, as with any other contract, do not provide for protections for those who enter such, with no reasonable means to expect one or both parties perform, or to pay.

Therefore where two people of the same gender, enter into a contract with terms that can only be serviced by two individuals of distinct gender, such a contract is wholly unenforcible, thus irrelevant, thus the exercise of entering into it, is a deceit, fraudulently advanced purely as a means to influence those who are ignorant of the facts provided above.

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

LOL!

Ok... We're making progress.


So those things that are written down... What are they and what purpose do they serve?

And what is it that the legal system is enforcing, exactly?

And how does that differ from one 'not living up to their word?

 

[PratchettFan]

I do understand what a legal contract is. It is not an extension of your sacred word.

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

LOL!

Ok... We're making progress.


So those things that are written down... What are they and what purpose do they serve?

And what is it that the legal system is enforcing, exactly?

And how does that differ from one 'not living up to their word?

I don't require an education from you on contracts and I seriously doubt you are looking for one from me. So just make your point.

 

[bodecea]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

Keep trying to convince yourself, eh?

ROFLMNAO....

Adorable...

(Reader, it's worth noting that not a single example of a single culture in human history that accepted sexual deviancy which so much as lived to tell the story, let alone one that sustained viability and measured any discernible success... .

But they've got a great reason for not listing such, as such does not exist. Because viability is never a consequence of rejecting reality.)

38 states where legal marriage is one man, one woman AND one man, one man AND one woman, one woman......soon to be all 50 states.........as it is in more and more countries of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you don't like being corrected, St. Keys, and will slice and dice a post to your pleasure, I have posted below the full to which you were replying.

"One, your silliness does not address the fact that my comment is truthful: contract overrides "word" as you want to use it. Two, you need to follow the forum rules if you wish to post. // The fact is that Marriage Equality will soon be the law of the land, and there is nothing you can do about it. Your relativist feelings mean nothing."

You then wrote: "You said the 'meaning of word is irrelevant'. In terms of silliness, there's no topping that. This being demonstrated through the use of my words which spoke directly to your point... With your simply being ignorant of what those words 'mean', because I am the only person who knows their meaning. Now imagine that I used those words and others like them in a contract. Now all you need do is inform the Reader as to whether or not you'd sign such a contract where those words were present... and why."

St. Keys the Irrelevant, your relativism is the fun part. You are being silly. Contract overrides your use of "word". The signatures on the contract are what is important. And thank you for conforming to the posting rules.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys doesn't care that it is all over but the shouting, because he is going to continue shouting his irrelevant relativistic disapproval of Marriage Equality.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

All that demonstrates is ignorance.

It's not even a debatable point.

But it doesn't come as a surprise that those who reject the sacred nature of honor... Are the same one's advocating for all manner of degeneracy.

But that said, the history of contracts is not a debatable issue. They are an extension of the oral agreements which rested upon the sacred nature of one's word.

If that makes you feel better. It is the position of the courts which matters. You can think contracts are pretty birdies if it makes you happy.

Well yes... Explain for the benifit of the board, how little one's word means in a contract. I think that would be very helpful.

Ok, for the benefit of the board. One's word is irrelevant in a contract. In a handshake agreement it certainly means something, or in a wager. But the purpose of a written contract is that the agreement is written down and is enforced by the legal system. It doesn't matter whether or not one keep's their word. It only matters that they meet their obligations under the contract. If people kept their word, then a written contract would not be necessary.

LOL!

Ok... We're making progress.


So those things that are written down... What are they and what purpose do they serve?

And what is it that the legal system is enforcing, exactly?

And how does that differ from one 'not living up to their word?

I don't require an education from you on contracts and I seriously doubt you are looking for one from me. So just make your point.

The point is made.

That you do not understand that the point was made, should serve as your notice that you're in dire need of an education... Of which Contracts 101 should be a part.

One's word, in terms of what one expects to give and to receive, is the explicit point of a contract.

There is no separating the two.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

You do realize that same sex marriage will soon be legal in all states?

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Some say marriage has always been between one man and one women. Not true ...


How marriage has changed over centuries

Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

ROFLMNAO!

It's as if they lack the means to reason.

Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman. And this without regard to the idiocy that has attempted to define it otherwise.

Now you'll know them by there fruit.

Take a look at "what marriage has also been" and find a successful sustainable culture that has come as a consequence of ANY OF THAT NONSENSE.

Keep trying to convince yourself, eh?

ROFLMNAO....

Adorable...

(Reader, it's worth noting that not a single example of a single culture in human history that accepted sexual deviancy which so much as lived to tell the story, let alone one that sustained viability and measured any discernible success... .

But they've got a great reason for not listing such, as such does not exist. Because viability is never a consequence of rejecting reality.)

38 states where legal marriage is one man, one woman AND one man, one man AND one woman, one woman......soon to be all 50 states.........as it is in more and more countries of the world.

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is What the SCOTUS Determines It is.

That's the point.

Stop spamming, St. Irrelevant.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Folks, this thread is in the Clean Debate Zone. There shouldn't be any trolling, snarky comments, etc. Thanks

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Since you don't like being corrected, St. Keys, and will slice and dice a post to your pleasure, I have posted below the full to which you were replying.

"One, your silliness does not address the fact that my comment is truthful: contract overrides "word" as you want to use it. Two, you need to follow the forum rules if you wish to post. // The fact is that Marriage Equality will soon be the law of the land, and there is nothing you can do about it. Your relativist feelings mean nothing."

You then wrote: "You said the 'meaning of word is irrelevant'. In terms of silliness, there's no topping that. This being demonstrated through the use of my words which spoke directly to your point... With your simply being ignorant of what those words 'mean', because I am the only person who knows their meaning. Now imagine that I used those words and others like them in a contract. Now all you need do is inform the Reader as to whether or not you'd sign such a contract where those words were present... and why."

St. Keys the Irrelevant, your relativism is the fun part. You are being silly. Contract overrides your use of "word". The signatures on the contract are what is important. And thank you for conforming to the posting rules.

What Jake is desperately trying NOT to say, is that absent words being clearly defined and understood by both parties, contracts are unenforceable. A person who does not speak English, who signs a contract written in English, would have little problem getting the contract annulled by an objective, impartial court, because there is no way that he could know what the contract said, this there is no way he could know to what he was agreeing.

And given that such is the only purpose OF A CONTRACT... The assertion that 'words mean nothing in a contract' is something that is beyond the scope defining "Ignorance".

That said... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Marriage is What the SCOTUS Determines It is.

That's the point.

Stop spamming, St. Irrelevant.

Only if SCOTUS is responsible for human physiology and the standards of sexual normality that such establishes.