Originally posted by windwaker

---

Just so you know, Silvershield, the bold is my commentary (the letters that have more pixels (dots) than the other letters).

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Originally posted by windwaker

---

NOTHING about US law should be sacred.

---

Marriage existed as a sacred institution long before the laws of America were a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes, or before Columbus even stepped onto his ship to seek the Indies; we as Americans did not invent marriage, and we cannot alter its character by declaring it an entirely secular insitution. In any case, though, I made it quite clear that I don't have a set opinion on the matter, so don't jump all over me as if I'm your enemy.

Wow, you see, I just installed this thing called lololol 2.0 RC, it just came out, and it has spell checking. I forgot to turn it off, but wow, look what I found. I thought "their" was the only spelling mistake in your 300+ posts? Wrong. "Their" isn't a spelling mistake, you used the wrong word. However, you did spell "institution" incorrectly. How embarrassing, considering your, you know, next sentence:

Originally posted by windwaker

---

First of all, it's not "their", it's "there".

---

Congratulations on discovering probably the single spelling mistake that you will find in my 300+ posts. I'm glad you used it to your advantage.

tool.

Originally posted by windwaker

---

If you can't use/spell even the simplest homophones correctly, who are you to say that a fetus is a "distinct life"?

---

Because the ability to spell correctly is a prerequisite for being able to make decisions regarding morality.

Well, spelling, not being totally arrogant/ironic, the list goes on.

Originally posted by windwaker

---

But, at least you aren't a hipocrit like a lot of "pro-life"-ers: [emphasis mine]

---

As stated, how "eyronic."

Originally posted by windwaker

---

Good. Everyone can have an opinion about what's wrong or not, and lying, for instance, isn't illegal. But alot more people should think about the consequences of what a law would do (that's you bass), rather than just saying "ABORTION IS WRONG AND IF IT IS ILLEGAL PEOPLE WON'T GET ABORTIONS". This is why the War on Drugs is failing, and prohibition failed before it.

---

First of all, don't patronize me. Secondly, lying isn't illegal because it does not directly murder an unborn child. Apples and oranges here.

Perhaps I overestimated you. Lying isn't illegal because YOU CAN'T MODERATE LYING. No one's going to be able to arrest people for lying.

I'll patronize you until you prove that you can handle these concepts without my help. You see, if abortions become illegal, people are just going to get abortions by paying off doctors. Very similar to how people get medical marijuana licenses today. See how I made a correlation between the two?

I only support the idea of instituting programs to offer alternatives to abortion, rather than simply outlawing it, because I'm not out to hurt pregnant women but to protect their unborn children. Outlawing abortion leaves a pregnant woman with no real alternative that does not injure the child, while improving the situation with birth control, adoption programs, etc can prevent or safely solve the problem.

Is semen an unborn child? Is it wrong to use condoms? The catholic church thinks so. Some people think a fetus isn't a living thing. Some people think contraceptives are sinful. Who are YOU, Mr. "I spell great except this one time", to draw this line?

Originally posted by blackhole89

---

Have the distinct lives in mind before washing your hands with that anti-bacterial soap next time.

---

I didn't know that millions of tiny humans lived on my hands. I'll never bathe again, because I might risk compromising those microscopic human beings whose lives are of value.

I for one, am highly offended by you saying this. How can you compare a sacred living thing to bacteria?

---

edit:

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Male-female marriage is the tradition, is the precedent, in this country. And since we're talking about the laws of this country, that's all that is relevant, no?

---

Originally posted by Silvershield

---

Marriage existed as a sacred institution long before the laws of America were a twinkle in the Founding Fathers' eyes, or before Columbus even stepped onto his ship to seek the Indies; we as Americans did not invent marriage, and we cannot alter its character by declaring it an entirely secular insitution.

---

You're an idiot.

---

Originally posted by Crayola

---

Just cut the religion out of socially abnormal Marriages. If it’s not religious then no one should have a problem with it unless they are discriminatory assholes that wish to push their religious values into laws.

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

Indeed quite sacred in this culture of ours.

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

and who ruined marriage?

hippies, liberals and feminists.

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

and who ruined marriage?

hippies, liberals and feminists.

---

Originally posted by Metal Knuckles

---

Originally posted by geeogree

---

and who ruined marriage?

hippies, liberals and feminists.

---

I miss the good old days of seperation between church and state. Sure, it didn't really exist, but it was something nice to look at all the same.

---

Originally posted by ||bass

---

Indeed quite sacred in this culture of ours.

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

I never really got this argument. It seems pretty obvious to me that legal marriage, and religious marriage are too seperate things. I see no reason why the government can't recognize the legal marriage of two men or two woman. And I see no reason why a religious organization would have to recognize it, or why they should be concerned if the government does. I'm sure God doesn't care about a piece of paper issued by the government, why should they?

---

Originally posted by Xkeeper

---

civil union != religious marrage

---