Homosexual NFL Player

Even if he is a bigot, so what?? the only people that try to convert others are christians and vegeterians...  i am neither, so i dont need to convert anyone into believing what i do...

the only people that try to convert others are christians and vegeterians

Very true. Good point.

Regardless of the grounds, then, am I to deduce that your opinion is that interracial marriage is bad in some way? Or do you agree with American society as a whole that it is ok?
-
As long as it is man-woman, as fits the historic definition of marriage, I'm fine with it, no matter anyone's "color".
-
No, my objection isn't against homosexuality, but rather A.) Redefining marriage, B.) preventing the erosion of the models of societal building blocks.

the only people that try to convert others are christians and vegeterians

Very true. Good point.
-
You forgot about Scientologists.

No one is denying ANYONE the right to marry a consenting adult since marriage is between a man and a woman. Show me one instance where a gay person has been refused the right to marry (man-woman), ... you can't.

You have already been proven wrong about this several times. 

never met anyone brave enough to admit they are a scientologist, so i did not know they too try to convert others... 

No, my objection isn't against homosexuality, but rather A.) Redefining marriage, B.) preventing the erosion of the models of societal building blocks.

Words are redefined all the time and how is allowing two people of the same sex, who by the way were not going to get married anyway enter into a marriage an erosion of societal building blocks? If anything I would argue it enforces those models by persuading individuals to lead committed relationships instead of having multiple partners their whole life. 

You have already been proven wrong about this several times.
-
No, not once, EVER, not on this.
-
What you are doing is saying "the earth is flat, it has been proven" even though everyone knows A.) You're an idiot, and B.) You are lying.

i didnt know marriage still existed, we call it pre-divorse where i come from.

Words are redefined all the time and how is allowing two people of the same sex, who by the way were not going to get married anyway enter into a marriage an erosion of societal building blocks? If anything I would argue it enforces those models by persuading individuals to lead committed relationships instead of having multiple partners their whole life. 
-
I will answer this in the proper venue. The NFL-General board is not that venue. I am already amazed this hasn't been Off-Topiced yet/.

You have already been proven wrong about this several times.
-
No, not once, EVER, not on this.
-
What you are doing is saying "the earth is flat, it has been proven" even though everyone knows A.) You're an idiot, and B.) You are lying.

Several times you have been proven wrong. If marriage was strictly defined as between a man and a women then DOMA would not of been needed.

<strong></strong>

<blockquote class="QuoteMessage"><strong>Words are redefined all the time and how is allowing two people of the same sex, who by the way were not going to get married anyway enter into a marriage an erosion of societal building blocks? If anything I would argue it enforces those models by persuading individuals to lead committed relationships instead of having multiple partners their whole life. </strong><br />-<br />I will answer this in the proper venue. The NFL-General board is not that venue. I am already amazed this hasn't been Off-Topiced yet/</blockquote>

What a cop out. 

What you are doing is saying "the earth is flat, it has been proven" even though everyone knows A.) You're an idiot, and B.) You are lying.

I don't know about that. I have given this much thought and wouldn't put them in that category. I would put them in the category of people who think the moon landing never happened and actually took place in some studio somewhere OR that the holocaust never really happened and it was all a lie.

people who think the moon landing never happened and actually took place in some studio

Wait, are you saying it didn't take place in a studio???

No, my objection isn't against homosexuality, but rather A.) Redefining marriage, B.) preventing the erosion of the models of societal building blocks.

Fair enough. So that means that you truly believe that by redefining marriage that the "societal building blocks" would be eroded. 

That is an interesting take, and I would be intrigued to know how you define a "societal buliding block." You mentioned plural, so I am also curious as to some other notions that are considered to be societal building blocks.

Wouldn't the societal building block model become outdated if not allowed to ever change? Part of the reason (not all) that this country is going down the chit shoot is because our educational system is still using 1950's models to educate our kids. Kids from other countries, not subjected to our educational models, on average, are vastly superior to us in math and science, as well as being fluent in 2 or 3 languages (or more) by the time they are ready for the work force.

You forgot about Scientologists.

And Jews.
And Muslums.
And Atheists.
And Buddhists.
And Mormons.
And Agnostics.
And Jehova's Witnesses.

They can all get preachy about their beliefs.

By allowing MORE people to be married, the societal building blocks will be eroded. That seems logical.

By the way, google "societal building blocks" and you will get 0 results that match 100%. They must be really important to, you know, society. 

 Part of the reason (not all) that this country is going down the chit shoot is because our educational system is still using 1950's models to educate our kids.

UNTRUE..  you are a funny guy and clown though!  Can I be your agent?

It is definitely one component of the reason. You're the clown.