Thank you, Thank you for the comments you left to my questions! Your thoughts were very insightful, for that matter I had not even considered the second comment 
As for your recent entry, I myself think questions are a great thing, you learn much more of yourself when you ask of others 
If you do not mind I will probably venture back to poke about your Journal a wee bit 
Its rather late here and i just wanted t say a quick hello before bed. I will return to look at your pictures. Have a good week
Senators defeated the Marriage Protection Amendment with a vote of 49-48.
A two thirds majority would have been needed to approve it, and it didn't even get a majority at all, I find it troubling that the vote was so close. Does anybody really care that this involved people's lives? Or is it all just a political game?
I still haven't gotten any kind of reasonable explanation as to just what it is that marriage needs to be preotected from. Here's one response I got:
It's simply a protection of the meaning of the word. People are attempting to redefine the word instead of simply granting similar rights under another title such as a civil union. As it stands, a "homosexual marriage" is a logical impossibility because a marriage is technically a union between a man and woman.
All this just so Mr. Webster won't have to rewrite his dictionary? Come on.
Is there anybody out there who can explain to me what marriage needs to be protected from? I would like to hear a non-religious explanation.
After all, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. Should we really be adding Constitutional Amendments based on religious belief?
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
