TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES VS. ALTERNATE LIFESTYLES

TMOV

HOW SHOULD IT BE DEFINED???

SHOULD THERE REALLY BE A DEFINITION THAT IS ABOUT TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES BECAUSE THE TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE IS FOR TO PROCREATE?

OR SHOULD THERE BE AN ALL ENCOMPASSING NEW DEFINITION STATING THAT MARRIAGE IS TO INCLUDE THE NON-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE OF COUPLES OF THE SAME SEX?

SHOULD THERE BE A DEFINED FREEDOM FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO RECEIVE THE SAME BENEFITS THAT TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN RECEIVE SUCH AS HEALTH CARE BENEFITS, RIGHTS OF SURVIVOR BENEFITS ,AND SO ON?
Question

MrsHoppes · Corporal Joined: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: USA

Marriage is between a man and a woman. That is how God created the union. Anything else is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

SicPreFix · Corporal Joined: Feb 21, 2004 Posts: 71 Location: Canada

With all due respect TMOV you really need to learn how to prepare polls before you run them. For example, start with a single question and a series of valid and logical responses.

Your current poll does not start with a valid or logical preposition or question, and its available answers are actually a mix of answers and questions, and its results would be meaningless - if anyone can even figure it out well enough to make a selection.

Try this:

_____________
poll post # 1

Question: Should the state create and mandate a legally binding definition of the union of marriage?

Answers: 1 - Yes, 2 - No, 3 - Undecided

_____________
poll post # 2

Question: If the state creates and mandates a legally binding definition of the union of marriage, which of the following would you like to see:

Answers: 1 - Man and woman only, 2 - same sex only, 3 - any consenting couple of legal age, 4 - anyone who wishes to be joined in matrimony with any animal, mineral, or vegetable.... and so on

You could of course refine or change the possible answers if you wish. Remember, for any poll to be valid you absolutely must include options (answers) that you may not like.

MrsHoppes · Corporal Joined: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: USA

With the question of "Should the state" the answer is no.
The state does not even belong getting involved in a marriage. Marriages are between God, husband, and wife. The union should be blessed by a preacher appointed by the Lord, but the state does not belong involved.

but since it is.... Man and Woman.

TMOV · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 10:09 pm Post subject:

BooRad · Sergeant Joined: Feb 13, 2004 Posts: 140 Location: USA

TMOV...SPF kinda has a valid point...but...a long poll! Your poll is just fine, though. SPF isn't giving much consideration to the golden poll rule...remember, size doesn't matter! Short polls, long polls, easy polls, hard polls, straight-to-the-point polls, crooked polls, funny polls, serious polls or even brainless polls...it just doesn't matter. What matters is the qualtiy of communication and love and tenderness that ensues and how the poll is delivered...that's what really matters. I'm I wrong? Let's poll MrsHoppes...MrsHoppes, whaddya you think?

BooRad

TMOV · Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:25 am Post subject:

SicPreFix · Corporal Joined: Feb 21, 2004 Posts: 71 Location: Canada

MrsHoppes · Corporal Joined: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: USA

SicPreFix · Corporal Joined: Feb 21, 2004 Posts: 71 Location: Canada

Have you no original thoughts of your own on the matter Mrs. Hoppes?

Parroting is so enervating.

And anyway, nowhere in the ambiguity of the fairy tale is there any talk of marriage or any other form of social union. You can of course read into it anything you want to but that doesn't actually put it there.

Those little bits of thoroughly ambiguous metaphor are simply a poetic way of describing (for innocent, naive, and unlearned listeners) the processes of procreation and continuation of species. And that's all.

The extremely limited understanding of the times led the authors to presume that all forms of life with which they were familiar (probably about only 1% of what actually existed on earth at the time) were in two groups: female and male. They were utterly unaware of single cell reproduction processes, ambisexual life forms, life forms that are capable of changing their gender for the purposes of procreation in hard times, and other forms of non-sexual reproduction.

Those pretty poseys have nought to do with, and certainly did not foresee such a thing as any form of the various social unions we now think of as marriage.

MrsHoppes · Corporal Joined: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: USA

It is amazing how much faith you have and sad how your faith is in lies, falshood and blasphemy.

TMOV · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:32 pm Post subject:

SicPreFix · Corporal Joined: Feb 21, 2004 Posts: 71 Location: Canada

Oooh! Blashphemy! Wow. How exciting.

Will I be struck by lightning?

Sometime this millenium?

Laughing

TMOV · Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:19 pm Post subject:

MrsHoppes · Corporal Joined: Feb 08, 2004 Posts: 58 Location: USA


	Home ˇ Topics ˇ Submit News ˇ Top 10 This entire site, Cops Themes, and Computer Cops are Š 2002 - 2004 Computer Cops, LLC. All rights reserved. You can syndicate our news using the file RSS 0.91, ultramode.txt, or RSS 1.0. Acceptable Use Policy. Use signifies your agreement. Engine Copyright Š 2002 by PHP-Nuke, GNU/GPL Licensed. ICRA Member. Paul Laudanski, Member of Computer Cops, LLC Server Load: 748 pages served in previous 5 minutes. Page Generation: 0.423 seconds.