Why homosexuality should be banned

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterBorn
  • Start date Start date
Southern Man said:
Except you don't have that authority; the States do. Perhaps you should move to Massachusetts and be "happily excited" there.

Zing!
Click to expand...

Hell, you claim to have the authority to decide that "refining" does not mean change.

I selected definitions, just like you did.

So now when the states do bring this topic up for legislation, you shouldn't argue because it fits the definitions.
 
Southern Man said:
You attempted to use your definitions on the laws of the State. Try that in court and see what it does for you.
Click to expand...

You tried to use yours to disguise your argument as a valid one.

As I said before, it is intellectually dishonest.



In a court I will use an argument for equality. And I would use the example that the definition of marriage has been changed before. If you think any lawyer would argue that it has been refined and not changed, you really are delusional.
 
WinterBorn said:
You tried to use yours to disguise your argument as a valid one.

As I said before, it is intellectually dishonest.



In a court I will use an argument for equality. And I would use the example that the definition of marriage has been changed before. If you think any lawyer would argue that it has been refined and not changed, you really are delusional.
Click to expand...

this is correct

if you "refine" a contract, you have altered the written contract. for example....a judge can "refine" a contract such that the express words meet the implied understanding between the parties....technically the "contract" did not change, it was refined...however, the written contract was in fact changed so that a meeting of the minds can take place and there can be an actual contract...

same with marriage....what PMP is arguing is that the definition has not changed, despite legislatures "refining" or "defining" marriage, however, this is not at all accurate, because if marriage was completely understood, between all the parties to the "contract" to be only between a man and a woman, there would be no need to "refine" what marriage means....
 
Yurt said:
since fornication has long been a sin or a no no.....i say we "refine" the law to ban sex before marriage....

who's with me....!!!!!
Click to expand...

Actually it is against the law in some states. There was something on dateline several years ago about it.
 
Yurt said:
interesting.....

then i'm sure PMP and SM will be against any changes in that law.....

you know, scarlet letter and stuff.....
Click to expand...

The law, from my understanding in Idaho, had no statue of limitations either. So ANY couple that EVER engaged in premarital sex could be charged.
 
Yurt said:
interesting.....

then i'm sure PMP and SM will be against any changes in that law.....

you know, scarlet letter and stuff.....
Click to expand...

I would suggest one refinement in the law.

Premarital sex implies that sex after marriage would be fine. But since gays are not allowed to marry, they should not be covered by this law.

So the only people who can legally have sex without being married would be gays and lesbians.
 
WinterBorn said:
I would suggest one refinement in the law.

Premarital sex implies that sex after marriage would be fine. But since gays are not allowed to marry, they should not be covered by this law.

So the only people who can legally have sex without being married would be gays and lesbians.
Click to expand...

so SM is covered spiritually and legally....

way to go SM....fornication rocks!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top