Difference between revisions of "Talk:Marriage"
From Conservapedia
Tmtoulouse (Talk | contribs) |
British cons (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::So be BOLD and edit it so that it is RIGHTeous! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ::So be BOLD and edit it so that it is RIGHTeous! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT) | ||
+ | :::Careful TM - he'll take you down with him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT) |
Revision as of 19:09, March 23, 2007
As far as I know, when they say "civil marriage," they mean the legal thing that may or may not be between a heterosexual couple (depending on where you live). It's a statement of fact, not opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong. --John 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
This is Conservapedia, where facts rule. John, if you want to throw in deeply false ideas (like the idea that a civil marriage can be between more than two people), they might like you in Wikipedia. In most states, civil unions are exclusively for a man and a woman! CEinhorn 01:23, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
- This article doesn't take a strong enough stand on the position that Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. (cf. The New York State Supreme Court's decision to ban gay 'marriages' in 2006. [1])
- So be BOLD and edit it so that it is RIGHTeous! Tmtoulouse 15:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- Careful TM - he'll take you down with him.--British_cons (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
- So be BOLD and edit it so that it is RIGHTeous! Tmtoulouse 15:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)