I asked a question, and you attempted to dodge it. Frankly, quibbling doesn't interest me. You simply do not want to talk to muslims like reasonable people because you want to hold on to your dim views on them. Why don't you talk it over with some muslims over a cup of tea? They can explain their views on things, and you will get a better view of what some actual muslims, you know, human beings, think. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I directly answered it. They aren't reasonable. They belong to an ideology that Institutionalized bigotry. I hold my view because they are self evident. Talking to people that belong subscribe to bigoted ideology would likely affirm that. Because I already know that if they don't believe allah's punisments are just they are not muslim. [QUOTEPThey can explain their views on things, and you will get a better view of what some actual muslims, you know, human beings, think.[/QUOTE]I can read their book. It establishes everything they think if they are muslim. If they reject it they aren't muslim. Muslim means they submit to Allah's rule. No, it would be a waste of time. I can just read the Qur'an and see what muslims are commanded to think. If they think differently they aren't muslim. Muslim means to submit to Allah and Islam. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
I'm not interested in a fight. If you want to pick fights with people on the internet, you'll have to find someone else to bait. Good night.
Fight? You are the one saying my views are dim and suggesting I have some prejudice against people. I was very calm in my ignoring of your baiting attacks on my character. I ignored them for the most part.
And it was a marriage ceremony after Obergefel, as opposed to a commitment ceremony prior to Obergefel? This is unbelievable! How in the hell do you explain the below exchange? Did you think that I am against same sex marriage?
what's the difference? I wasn't allowed marry my partner before 2015. Being knighted or coordinated Pope without the consent of the royalty or Vatican is just pretend. I honestly don't think anything about you you're impossible to predict why do you keep asking me this what difference does it make?
I asked you how you got married. You did NOT reply by talking about the legal process! You just said, "I just said I was married and my partner agreed ."
Okay after the oberfel decision we went to the justice of the peace and got a marriage license at that point we were married. That's all marriage is it's nothing else. So yes it's just two people agreeing that they're married after blood tests and what not depending on your state.
I see. That's clear now, but until this point I was under the impression that you just considered yourselves as married to eachother without the government being involved. So what was your motivation for getting married? Some states still require blood tests?
Yes and I'm asking what your motivation was for getting married. I assume it was purely for the legal benefits.
In order to get married? I don't know how you'd be able to go to the justice of the peace and aquire a marriage license unless it was legal to do so.
In order to get married? I don't know how you'd be able to go to the justice of the peace and aquire a marriage license unless it was legal to do so.
'Marriage' was corrupted as an institution when it became a contract with the govt. If religious institutions feel the need to seperate their unions from other groups to retain the meaning of the union (such as one man and one woman), they're free to do so. Anyone may have a wedding to anyone else in which they publicly proclaim their intent or promise of love and loyalty to another, and any institution, religious or otherwise, is free to choose to officiate its blessing on that union, or not. Should I ever find a suitable and willing women to share a promise of mutual monogamy and cooperative habitation with me, it will be my preference to wed her in a public ceremony, officiated by someone I respect in a spiritual context, and be kept wholly unrelated to and seperate from any government entities whatsoever. The government has an obligation, imo, to respect all consensual adult unions, or none of them. I see no difference between banning gay marriage and banning group marriage, for example. The govt should not be allowed to discriminate.
This is the second time you've asked me questions like this. When I'm responding to you about a subject and I refer to the subject is it I'm referring to the subject. Since the subject marriage if I refer to it I'm referring to marriage. Forgive me for my irritation if English is not your first language.
I don't really care how you want to define your words, and you can make your own personal lingo where "gay marriage" means "civil union". If you want to call "gay marriage" "xyz", I wouldn't have a problem with that either. As long as we agree that "gay marriages" or "civil unions" have all the same rights as straight marriage, then we agree, and thats it. But legally speaking, if it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then its a lot simpler to just call it a duck to reduce complicating our regulations.
You said "IT was made legal", but before IT was made legal it wasn't a marriage! So then how can IT be your marriage? I assume that you mean your relationship was made legal.
yeah it is the subject I wasn't talking about flying around on a magic f****** dragon. profoundly stupid assumption on your part why not assume that I was talking about flying on witches broom. What has this conversation that about? If you can't understand this sort of thing you have no business posting on an English-speaking forum. When you ask me stupid questions like this it makes me feel like you're just playing dumb to avoid the conversation. and I find it irritating that you conveniently forget rules of English.
I have no idea why this is so hard for you to understand. I'm asking why you decided to get married as opposed to just being a same sex couple. Again, I assume that it is the legal benefits that marriage brings.
