Say Anything Blog

Do you really want to start redefining marriage?

No. We need to go back to the way it was in the old days: Two members of the same race, and with the male assuming property rights over the woman. Once we stray from that, robot-human marriage is right around the corner.

Or wait, you want to accept the first ten redefinitions of marriage, but stop at number eleven. Gotcha. Eternally consistent as always.

The evolution of marriage over time has never involved redefinition. It has always been heterosexual. Ignorant as always, Dave.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

It has always been heterosexual. Ignorant as always, Dave.

You’re going to have to explain how repealing laws limiting marriage on the basis of race are NOT a “redifinition” but repealing laws limiting marriage on the basis of gender ARE a “redefinition.”

Or, of course, you could continue to just assert this without providing any logical justification. I know what my money’s on…

You’re going to have to explain how repealing laws limiting marriage on the basis of race are NOT a “redifinition” but repealing laws limiting
marriage on the basis of gender ARE a “redefinition”.

Sounds like you already know that.  Race was not part of the “definition”, but heterosexuality is, and has always been.  Even when some areas in some countries prohibited interracial(and sometimes intercultural) marriage, it wasn’t to say it wasn’t marriage, just that it wasn’t permitted.  So-called “gay marriage” isn’t marriage at all.  The minority special interest pressure is to redefine the fundamental nature of marriage itself, not who can participate in an already established institution.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Dave: Just to be clear, there is a difference between “definition” and “requirements”.  The definition of marriage is that it is heterosexual.  Down through the ages, the requirements for marriage have varied, but the essential heterosexual definition has not.
The minority special interest pressure groups now want to change the fundamental definition of marriage, not merely the requirements.  They lie about this, of course, aided by people like you who aid and abet them in their lies by trying to distract with irrelevant side issues.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Exactly how is this different from the “blow up love doll”, besides the application of technology to make it (ugh) more “realistic”?

As if a computerized blowup doll who responds sexually to anything “her” man does ("Wow, you came home drunk with lipstick on your collar...let’s hop in bed!") is anything like a real woman.

If it happens, though, I would (sadly) not be surprised if Taxachusetts makes it a legal arrangement.

Is the robot Hot?

male assuming property rights over the woman

LOL, Sheesh Dave, did they even have legal marriages 50,000 years ago?

The only robot I would marry is “Rosie” from the Jetson’s and then look for my lovin’ elsewhere

Those fembots from Austin Powers were goooooood looking.  Although I can truly see the benefits of Rosie, even though I am a liberal and your side sees me as always wrong....LOL LOL

Anna,

If you marry Rosie, wouldn’t that be redefining marriage?

Sheesh Dave, did they even have legal marriages 50,000 years ago?

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Proof writes:

Derpa Derpa, bloopy bloo, derp

Dave - You’re going to have to explain how repealing laws limiting marriage on the basis of race are NOT a “redifinition” but repealing laws limiting marriage on the basis of gender ARE a “redefinition.”

You give the answer without even realizing it. In the past, laws were repealed that limited marriage to couples of the same race. Repeal was the correct word to use there.

By converse, people today are attempting not any kind of “repeal”, but rather a definition change to allow same sex couples. There’s nothing to “repeal” except the current definition.