In The Aftermath...

[california boy]

California Boy, neither dictionaries nor the state define the definition of mairrage. The definition of mairrage is defined by the individual, and depends on your Point of View. That is because all communication is done in Point of View relative status. Thus, no matter what the dictionaries or the state says, people will always debate what the definition is.

I am only pointing out that when enough people define a word the same way, it in reality becomes one of the definitions of the word. I am not implying that is the governments nor your definition of the word.

[california boy]

<div>

Homosexual do not want "marriage", <em class="bbc" style="font-style: italic !important; ">per se</em>, <strong class="bbc" style="font-weight: bold !important; ">from what I've read</strong>. <strong class="bbc" style="font-weight: bold !important; ">T</strong><strong class="bbc" style="font-weight: bold !important; ">hey want the government goodies</strong> that go along with the label.

</div>

<p> </p>

<p>I completely agree with you. Some people this equality battle is over a word. It is not. It is about equality in how the government treats its citizens.</p>

<p> </p>

<div>

Further, some, naming themselves "leaders" of the movement, admit that the goal is to destroy the traditional family, and to redefine "marriage" such that things like "fidelity" and "obligation" are eliminated from the concept.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>A favorite zinger that those against gay marrriage like to throw out no matter how unsubstanuated the claim is. What did one person make this comment and some how it has become the goal of the entire gay movement. Yeah right. I would love a cfr on this point, but those that make this claim have yet to provide evidence that this is a secret agenda of the equal marriage rights movement. Because it is not.</div>

<p><br />

</p>

<div>

There are alternative means to achieve the <strong class="bbc" style="font-weight: bold !important; ">stated</strong> goal: equality. But those means do not effect the aim: to weaken "family" as the foundational element of civilization. Politicians like the idea of weak families. It's why they established economic dependency programs (that kicks fathers out of homes so mothers can collect), indoctrination camps (that reduce or eliminate parental influence in children's knowledge), and antiSocial inSecurity (that obviates the need for thee to "honour thy father and thy mother"; the state will do that)—strong families do not need much government, but weak ones do. Weak families demand more government, strong one reject it. Bureaucrats are power seekers, they want to control others' lives, and they, along with politicians do all they can to make strong families weak and weak families weaker: it's in their interest to do so.

</div>

<div> </div>

<div>ok that is just wacky. More secred agendas. The irony of this statement is that it is the Mormon Church itself that has the alternative goal to weaken gay families by doing all it possibly can in the political area and public square to prevent gay families from receiving the blessings of marriage. They would rather children not live in a family that is legally married if it is not exactly like the family they want to support then have gays allowed to marry under not just their religious views, but by the law of the land. How sick is that?</div>

[jo1952]

Do I qualify for any college credits for having read all of the legal points presented here????

Best regards,

jo