(March 19, 2012 at 5:17 pm)StatCrux Wrote: I fully understand the proposals, it is you who are refusing to understand my objections. Were the proposals simply "civil partnerships" to be conducted by willing religious institutions there would not be an issue, it is the use of the term marriage (regardless of civil or religious) when applied to same sex partnerships, is it so difficult for you to understand this?
I understand your objections. Why do you think we're calling you out on banning other CHURCHES from marrying people. Yours is not the only church.
You simply demand YOUR church has a monopoly on what marriage means.
You're not reading a word anybody says are you.
Damn, I said I was done.. Okay I really mean it this time. Cthulu summed up my post far better.
Self-authenticating private evidence is useless, because it is indistinguishable from the illusion of it. ― Kel, Kelosophy Blog
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
If you’re going to watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo. That show was so cool because every time there’s a church with a ghoul, or a ghost in a school. They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
The f**king janitor or the dude who runs the waterslide. Throughout history every mystery. Ever solved has turned out to be. Not Magic. ― Tim Minchin, Storm
