I really like the idea of using the term "pairage" from now on. We could use some new vocabulary for the new definition.
But haven't all the gays gobbled up all the marriage licences leaving children to be raised either outside the sanctity of a one man one woman marriage or even worse in a same sex marriage?
Because of course, if you allow gay people to get married, to each other, then they'll decide against entering a heterosexual marriage and raising children within that marriage.
I mean, there's only so many marriages to go around, we need to save them for the hetros.
Gay marriage will be fully legalized before pot. One is a psychotropic drug, the other is literally nothing and has been shown to do nothing in countries that have legalized it.
Anyone noticed the downwards spiral of morality that Canada has been in since 2005? No?
Guano what I think? That's a good one! You didn't just make that up did you?
I really like the idea of using the term "pairage" from now on. We could use some new vocabulary for the new definition.
Absolutely. I'm kind of shocked edge would post that. A quick google search will reveal that churches that refuse to perform interracial marriages have never lost their tax exempt status or faced any other legal consequences.I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
So gay people want to force their way into temple marriages now? Just to be spiteful?
I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
So gay people want to force their way into temple marriages now? Just to be spiteful?
I think the 1st Amendment more than adequately protects religious institutions from this sort of thing. I'd call it a complete non-issue.
How long until a gay couple sued a Mormon bishop and/or the LDS church because they refused to perform the marriage in their building?