GLACC Poll: September

Sunday, October 9, 2011

One alternative is as legitimate as another...right?

And why not? If the very meaning of marriage has been changed to include one 'alternative lifestyle', why not another?

When gay marriage is argued for by activists who want it legalized, they often unfairly compare it to the civil rights struggles of black Americans. If they were able to use that comparison as part of a strategy to have government force others to recognize their lifestyle, then they should have no problem with other alternative lifestyles using their struggle to legitimize their own movement.

1 comment:

  1. So the legal defination of marriage is

    A legal union between 2 or more persons.

    Isn't that a corporation???

    Wait hold it what about those people who want to marry their pets??

    Here in Canada, our Parliament, apparently, has the competence to change the 10 000 year old definition of Marriage, from being contracted between one man and one woman to being contracted between two persons.

    But changing the 300 year old legal definition of human being, which was coined in the 1700s, based on the scientific evidence of the time, which states that a human being is a human being when it is born and the umbilical cord is cut, even though scientific evidence has changed now, can't be touched. Why? everyone knows that would mean that the unborn child, even if not yet a legal person, is definitely a HUMAN BEING. And how does one stomach the LEGAL destruction of HUMAN BEINGS? By making sure that they are never declared HUMAN BEINGS, which is exactly why the pro aborts don't want the definition of HUMAN BEING changed, even though it is scientifically incorrect, like it ws right to change the definition of marriage because it was archaic.

    The Law is an Ass - an idiot! -=Dickens