In Defense of the Marriage

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

No. I do not consider friends part of the nuclear family. Not in its strictest sense by definition.

the term family is ascribed to people who live together and have ties...this could be blood relations or it could be other ties..marriage for example..adding the word nuclear on the front of it merely adds a dimension to the general term family

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by bexy

i think you will find that the first type of love is mainly ascribed to the God's ..

That is not the original Greek definition.

[downquark1]

right you have a right to your opinion but tp so publically denounce all other kinds of family life is not on........ if you had said "in my opinion the best kind of..." but you didn't you classed it a "real" family

I think it's different across the pond, but since he is on this forum he must follow the rule of the mods.

I personally don't have a problem with him expressing this unless it is targeted at specific people to cause insult.

[Jerrek]

the term family is ascribed to people who live together and have ties...this could be blood relations or it could be other ties..marriage for example..adding the word nuclear on the front of it merely adds a dimension to the general term family

Then we are again separating fly**** from pepper, because you know what I'm talking about. I am going with the dictionary definition. The two parents, and the children.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I think it's different across the pond, but since he is on this forum he must follow the rule of the mods.

I personally don't have a problem with him expressing this unless it is targeted at specific people to cause insult.

i see your point, i just feel that this forum is made up of 2000+ people and to, effectively, judge those who aren't in his view in a "real" family is not on

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Then we are again separating fly**** from pepper, because you know what I'm talking about. I am going with the dictionary definition. The two parents, and the children.

that is the dictionary definition of a nuclear family

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Well then, I know what you're talking about, but those are considered priviledges, not rights.

In the eyes of the law they are considered rights, so I don`t see how your opinion can even enter into it. You are entitled to assign whatever label you want, but that doesn`t undermine the legislation in effect.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Then we are again separating fly**** from pepper, because you know what I'm talking about. I am going with the dictionary definition. The two parents, and the children.

You're going with *one* of the dictionary definitions of family, the one that happens to suit your viewpoint. There are other "dictionary definitions" of family that do make perfect allowance for a family with a homosexual couple in the parental role. Don`t just cherry pick the little bits that suit your needs.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

You're going with *one* of the dictionary definitions of family, the one that happens to suit your viewpoint. There are other "dictionary definitions" of family that do make perfect allowance for a family with a homosexual couple in the parental role. Don`t just cherry pick the little bits that suit your needs.

well said

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

My point was it invalidates philip's argument that you should be allowed to marry anyone you love.


I don't know. If a parent divorces, takes the kids, and forms a relationship with a same-sex partner? I don't know. I wouldn't like it, for sure.

I think Philips liberal view would require consent from both parties. As said already a 2 year old does not. Their parents are unlikely to give it and if they did could be overruled by a child court.

Also when you are quoting can you put the name you are quoting from it makes threading easier to understand the command is [ quote = name ] no spaces obviously.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Yes I do. It is called an opinion, and I have a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of speech. And I'm exercising that right.

Maybe so, but if the founding fathers had been able to forsee people like you twisting that to suit their own ends I think they probably would have reconsidered entirely.

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by bexy

i see your point, i just feel that this forum is made up of 2000+ people <snip>

who could also be considered a family.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Maybe so, but if the founding fathers had been able to forsee people like you twisting that to suit their own ends I think they probably would have reconsidered entirely.

Perhaps why there have been so few ammendments.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by SMHarman

who could also be considered a family.

exactly my point huni

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

Maybe so, but if the founding fathers had been able to forsee people like you twisting that to suit their own ends I think they probably would have reconsidered entirely.

It's a good law, but you have to take the bad as well as the good. :o

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

You're going with *one* of the dictionary definitions of family, the one that happens to suit your viewpoint.

Yep, and all of this is irrelevant because I got my point accross to Miss B. You're just trying to argue about a trivial thing like definition. I'm quite sure you've got the brains to know what I meant.