REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Hawaii to become 16th state to accept same-sex marriage

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Thursday, November 14, 2013 15:02
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3217
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 9, 2013 2:03 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

When, as most everyone expects, Gov. Neil Abercrombie signs into law same-sex marriage here in the coming days, it may almost seem like a routine event. Hawaii is poised to be among 16 states to approve gay marriage.

It was the first judicial expression of an idea that soon caught fire across the country and the world.

The ruling prompted a national backlash, with Congress barring federal recognition of same-sex marriage and dozens of states amending their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and it was even overruled by Hawaii’s voters. But it also opened a huge new front for the gay rights movement, laying the groundwork for scores of legal and political battles ever since.

So when it became clear this week in a raucous special session of the State Legislature that same-sex marriage would finally come to Hawaii, it was the closing of a circle.

“I’ve got what we Hawaiians call chicken skin — goose bumps,” said Daniel R. Foley, now a state judge. As a private lawyer in Honolulu in 1990, he took on the case of same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses after national rights groups had declined it as far-fetched.

On Friday, hundreds of gleeful advocates of same-sex marriage waved rainbow flags at the Capitol while hundreds of opponents shouted “Let the people decide” and sang “God Bless America.” Friday night, after a day of emotional debate, the House of Representatives passed the bill to expand marriage rights, making its final adoption next week a near certainty as it heads to the Senate before being signed by the governor.

The 1993 Hawaii ruling spurred advocacy groups to make marriage equality a prime goal. It energized campaigns that would bring the country’s first civil unions in Vermont in 2000 and the country’s first same-sex marriage vows in Massachusetts only nine years ago.



Mary L. Bonauto, another legal advocate for same-sex marriage, said that “Hawaii really encouraged people on the marriage issue; it showed that a court can get it.”

Today, more than 30 lawsuits in at least 20 states are testing marriage restrictions in what Ms. Bonauto, a project director of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, in Boston, called an “explosion in litigation.” They include challenges to state amendments barring same-sex marriage in Nevada and Virginia, demands that Texas grant divorces to same-sex couples married elsewhere and a suit to be decided soon in New Mexico arguing that same-sex marriages are permitted by state law.

For Steven H. Levinson, the State Supreme Court justice who wrote the 1993 opinion in Baehr v. Lewin, it is a moment of reckoning. He looks back on his failure to grasp the forces that were unleashed.

The few previous suits pushing for same-sex marriage in other states “had been laughed out of court,” Mr. Levinson recalled. “I soon realized that this opinion was going to be major.”

“But I was naïve about how the Baehr decision would be received,” he said between meetings this week at the State Capitol, where in retirement he has helped campaign for the long-elusive legislative victory.

The counterattack was more powerful than he could have imagined. In Washington, the specter of Hawaii spurred the 1996 passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriage and allowed states to ignore such marriages from states that allowed them.

To allow a full airing of views, the Legislature said any citizen could comment. In what some called a “public filibuster,” religious opponents mobilized, accounting for most of the more than 1,000 people who testified for two minutes each, during 55 hours of hearings over five days this week.

Both sides claimed to represent the true “aloha spirit.” Some ethnic Hawaiians tearfully said the bill would destroy their culture, and the opponents’ television and radio ads described as endangered the Hawaiian heritage of “ohana,” or family, of “mothers and fathers caring for each other and their keiki,” or children.

But ethnic historians noted that the pre-European island culture did not have marriage in the modern sense and accepted homosexuality. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/us/gay-marriage-battle-nears-end-in-
hawaii-the-first-front-line.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:34 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I don't want to be forced to marry a gay man !

DAMMIT !

Seriously though, all I'm saying is what I've said all along. Gays should be able to be with who they want to be, LEGALLY, in the open, and all should be right w/ the world.

LOVE is a beautiful thing. It really is.

But change the definition of marriage, it's nothing but a matter of time before polygamy is part of our society,and why not ? Who are we to decide what's best for 2, 3, 6 people ?

Get pissed at me all you want, but you know this to be true.

If that's what everyone wants, then fine. Just be honest about it, and don't HATE on that which seems " ridiculous " now.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 3:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Wow.. only 34 more to go then....

Great job Niki.

Maybe when you get bored with your gay crusade, you can fight for other things that the other 90% of oppressed people care about.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:14 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't want to be forced to marry a gay man !

DAMMIT !

Seriously though, all I'm saying is what I've said all along. Gays should be able to be with who they want to be, LEGALLY, in the open, and all should be right w/ the world.

LOVE is a beautiful thing. It really is.

But change the definition of marriage, it's nothing but a matter of time before polygamy is part of our society,and why not ? Who are we to decide what's best for 2, 3, 6 people ?

Get pissed at me all you want, but you know this to be true.

If that's what everyone wants, then fine. Just be honest about it, and don't HATE on that which seems " ridiculous " now.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall





Thing is, you've never been able to "define" marriage without throwing in about 37 bushels of qualifiers.


And again, what do you care if 2, 3, or 6 people want to get married?


You still can't name a single way in which gay marriage - or even polygamy, which you think is exactly the same - will negatively impact your life or society as a whole.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 4:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I don't answer to sock puppets.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 6:49 PM

ELVISCHRIST





It's okay. I never expected to get an honest answer out of you. I've been watching this place long enough to know that.




Meanwhile, here's something for Niki2, for bringing this awesome news to the site:






NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 9:46 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But change the definition of marriage, it's nothing but a matter of time before polygamy is part of our society,and why not ? Who are we to decide what's best for 2, 3, 6 people ?



For one, the definition of marriage is not set in stone and has changed throughout history. Plus you are literally making an argument based on semantics.

Second, slippery slope arguments are for people who have no real argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 10:15 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Second, slippery slope arguments are for people who have no real argument.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Tell that to this guy...



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 10:19 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Tell that to this guy...



I would, but he is dead. Funny that you a self proclaimed atheist would post that video in response.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Tell that to this guy...



I would, but he is dead. Funny that you a self proclaimed atheist would post that video in response.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Yes. He IS dead. And despite his religious vantage point, his comments were dead on accurate.

Comments he made so very long ago. Now, why would you think that came to be ?

He was foretold, by some super natural power ?

OR

He saw the natural progression ( pardon the use of that word ) of how society slides when the foundations of it are mocked, attacked and vilified.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, November 9, 2013 11:57 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
He saw the natural progression ( pardon the use of that word ) of how society slides when the foundations of it are mocked, attacked and vilified.



Gay marriage does none of this. Letting same sex couples marry does not in anyway effect traditional marriage. So, he and you are wrong.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
He saw the natural progression ( pardon the use of that word ) of how society slides when the foundations of it are mocked, attacked and vilified.



Gay marriage does none of this. Letting same sex couples marry does not in anyway effect traditional marriage. So, he and you are wrong.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.



Watch the video again. Clearly, you missed much.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 1:56 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Watch the video again. Clearly, you missed much.



I could watch it a hundred more times, it will not change anything.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:35 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


I don't want to be forced to marry a gay man !

DAMMIT !

You will and you'll LIKE it, dammit!!!!

Do what your government tells you, everyone else is accepting it, it's why Obama traveled from Kenya - to take your guns and have you marry a man.
Just think, a honeymoon in Hawaii, all expenses paid by the Feds.

Then comes the good part, you'll get taxed to death and it'll pay for Obamacare. It's all part of the Plan. Muah ha ha, mine is an evil laugh!


SGGsmiling

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:39 AM

SHINYGOODGUY


Hey Niki, I may be wrong but, I always thought that the Constitution gave everyone equal rights to pursue happiness, etc.........

You know, regardless of sex, skin color, etc.


SGGlawoftheland

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 12:26 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Well, that's the Declaration, not the Constitution, and that's not a part of what the Founding Fathers intended that our righties want us to think about. "Pursuit of happiness" only counts when it doesn't go against THEIR beliefs and comfort zone; that's been the battle all along.

I love the idea "of how society slides when the foundations of it are mocked, attacked and vilified". We've "slid" right away from slavery, women as chattel, only landowning white males being able to vote, divorce being impossible, monarchy, religious persecution, child labor, indentured servants, debtor's prisons, serfdom (should I go on?), …really gone to shit, hasn't it? Damn, life sure was better back in the Middle Ages!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 3:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't answer to sock puppets.




How about me?

And again, what do you care if 2, 3, or 6 people want to get married?

I am really curious about what objection you have to this, as long as its consenting, informed adults.


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 5:41 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't answer to sock puppets.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall





Is there anybody here who ISN'T a "sockpuppet"?

Who here posts under their full given name?

Raptor certainly doesn't. I doubt Geezer's given name is Geezer, Fremdfirma's name probably isn't that, Niki might be named Niki, but who here is really posting under their full name?

In a sense, this site has never been anything but sockpuppets talking to sockpuppets.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 6:57 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yup, I have always used my own name on every forum, Facebook page, etc., I've ever been on. Going on twenty years now; I got nothing to hide. The idea, however, that anyone is DT's sockpuppet makes me laugh; he had a very distinctive style which would be virtually impossible to hide, in my opinion. But that's just my opinion.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, November 10, 2013 11:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Man, short memories.
You do realize that me and mikey caught him out red-handed when he biffed the login quite some time ago, yes ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 6:10 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

In a sense, this site has never been anything but sockpuppets talking to sockpuppets.




I have but 1 name/handle/tag, what ever, under which I post here. Same can't be said for everyone, now can it ?

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 9:34 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I have but 1 name/handle/tag, what ever, under which I post here. Same can't be said for everyone, now can it ?



...and you use that as an excuse to run from questions.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 11:00 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I don't answer to sock puppets.



Or direct questions, or with any integrity...

Chickenshit runs away when asked for the definition he insists is being changed - again.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 11:03 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


When shit gets "really weird", you can just keep going with it.

I read a statistic recently that said that more than 6% of married men have swallowed cum at one time or another. More than 50% of them had swallowed their own cum, and continue to do so on a daily basis while trapped in a state of orgasmic bliss.


My challenge to you Niki, and to other women here.....

Do what you can to make sure this isn't a plague that spreads.

There's nothing you can do about not being as young and hot as Starletts today.

Don't matter to the men. If they talk to their co-workers about what a bitch you are and how much they hate spending a second of their time with you, they'd sooner F--K a brick wall for an 18 year old Disney princess like Selena Gomez than have sex with you.

Ball's in your court....

While you hide your pussy away the mice play....

Do you even know what your husband is doing when you're out with your friends?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


I always answer honest questions. You not liking my answers doesn't mean I've not given my answer.

Name calling & childish ad hominem attacks aren't exactly conducive to honest, open exchange & dialogue .



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:40 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Maybe when you get bored with your gay crusade, you can fight for other things that the other 90% of oppressed people care about.
Yeah, like gun ownership. [snicker] 'Cause who the fuck cares about jobs and pollution?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:41 PM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
When shit gets "really weird", you can just keep going with it.

I read a statistic recently that said that more than 6% of married men have swallowed cum at one time or another. More than 50% of them had swallowed their own cum, and continue to do so on a daily basis while trapped in a state of orgasmic bliss.


My challenge to you Niki, and to other women here.....

Do what you can to make sure this isn't a plague that spreads.

There's nothing you can do about not being as young and hot as Starletts today.

Don't matter to the men. If they talk to their co-workers about what a bitch you are and how much they hate spending a second of their time with you, they'd sooner F--K a brick wall for an 18 year old Disney princess like Selena Gomez than have sex with you.

Ball's in your court....

While you hide your pussy away the mice play....

Do you even know what your husband is doing when you're out with your friends?



Such eloquence!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:45 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I love the idea "of how society slides when the foundations of it are mocked, attacked and vilified". We've "slid" right away from slavery, women as chattel, only landowning white males being able to vote, divorce being impossible, monarchy, religious persecution, child labor, indentured servants, debtor's prisons, serfdom (should I go on?), …really gone to shit, hasn't it? Damn, life sure was better back in the Middle Ages!
Yeah, the idea of equality under the law sure dangerous, isn't it?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 12:47 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I always answer honest questions. You not liking my answers doesn't mean I've not given my answer.

Name calling & childish ad hominem attacks aren't exactly conducive to honest, open exchange & dialogue .



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall





Did I call you a name?

I asked a direct question.

Geezer repeated it and asked it of you as well.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 1:08 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

And again, what do you care if 2, 3, or 6 people want to get married?


Redefining marriage is only a problem for people who didn't understand the basis of their definition. Because if you don't know WHY you decided to define marriage one way or another, clearly you don't know where to draw the new line either.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, November 11, 2013 10:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Okay rappy, do you have an answer for the question? You've had a few days to think about it by now.

Or are you having a cow over something you don't understand? All worried about something, and can't even explain why?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 4:23 AM

ELVISCHRIST





He's gone, or he refuses to answer. That's really all the answer you need. He's outraged about something he can't even accurately describe, and worried about something he can't define. Fear of "the Other" is the hallmark of a conservative mind.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 9:33 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Meanwhile, on the issue in general:
Quote:

One by one, states are legalizing gay marriage. Delaware, Minnesota, and Rhode Island joined the list this year. Hawaii and Illinois soon will bring the number to 16 states, plus the District of Columbia.

US Supreme Court decisions this year voiding part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and effectively doing the same to California’s Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage no doubt have accelerated movement in that direction.

Oregon is likely to have the subject on a ballot measure next year; Michigan, Ohio, and Arizona may as well. Polls in many states – as they do nationally – now show majority approval of gay marriage, or at least opposition to state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. That includes Pennsylvania, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, and Oregon, according to this Monitor survey of 11 gay marriage battleground states.

“The more people are winning, the more people are stepping up and wanting to become involved and move forward after,” Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, told Time. “The more we make it real – the more places gay people share in the freedom to marry – the more people see with their own eyes families helped and no one hurt.”

“They used to say you could only win in the coast, not in the heartland,” Mr. Wolfson said. “But we’ve won in Minnesota and Iowa. With Illinois, we have 37 percent of American people living in a freedom-to-marry state, including states in the heartland with more to come.”

The next federal court case could come in deeply conservative Idaho, where four couples (all women) are suing the state in federal court to challenge laws banning same-sex marriage and denying recognition to same-sex couples who married in other states.

Sue Latta and Traci Ehlers, Lori and Sharene Watsen, Shelia Robertson and Andrea Altmayer, and Amber Beierle and Rachael Robertson filed the lawsuit in Boise's US District Court on Friday.

"Idaho's exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage and refusal to respect existing marriages undermines the plaintiff couples' ability to achieve their life goals and dreams, disadvantages them financially, and denies them 'dignity and status of immense import,'" the women wrote in their lawsuit. "Further, they and their children are stigmatized and relegated to a second-class status by being barred from marriage."

In the Idaho lawsuit, the women note that they are allowed to file joint federal tax returns just as any married couple may, but that they are prohibited from joint tax filing status in Idaho, forcing them to file separately here. They also note that they lack the right in Idaho to make decisions for an ill or incapacitated spouse, the right to recognition as a legal parent, and a host of other rights and responsibilities otherwise afforded to married couples in the state.

The Hawaii House of Representatives passed a special session bill on Friday night legalizing gay marriage, setting up a final approval by the state Senate before it's sent to Gov. Neil Abercrombie for his signature. The Senate passed an earlier version last week.

"I commend the House of Representatives for taking this historic vote to move justice and equality forward," Gov. Abercrombie said in a statement after the House vote. "After more than 50 hours of public testimony from thousands of testifiers on both sides of the issue, evaluating dozens of amendments, and deliberating procedures through hours of floor debates, the House passed this significant bill, which directly creates a balance between marriage equity for same-sex couples and protects our First Amendment freedoms for religious organizations.” http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2013/1110/Gay-marriage-spreads-to
-more-states.-Will-the-trend-continue-video


That's essentially what it comes down to; protecting us from religious organizations, given it is vastly the "religious community" which is still fighting and issue which is clearly about nothing more than equal rights.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:50 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay rappy, do you have an answer for the question? You've had a few days to think about it by now.




He's had YEARS. The question has been asked again and again.

He refuses to answer it - because he can't. He knows there is no one definition - but he doesn't have the courage or integrity to just say so.

So, he'll claim it's not an honest question - and run away. Time and time again - its all he does. He is right wing dishonesty and cowardice personified.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:11 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Marriage is defined ,as it has been for thousands of years, as a man and a woman. How is that a problem for anyone ?

I'm at a loss as to why some are attempting to make this an issue , where there isn't one. Male + female reproduction is the foundation by which pretty much all higher life, not just hominids, not just mammals, but all vertebrate life is built. Marriage is a logical social conclusion on this self evident truth.

I really didn't 'run away' from anything, as I didn't think y'all were being serious. I still don't, but I'll play along, just as well.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:32 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Marriage is defined ,as it has been for thousands of years,



Yet you can't actually provide any non religious basis for this.

Saying its defined, and refusing to give that definition of where you get it from IS RUNNING AWAY you cowardly idiot.

And here you do it again. You can't give the answer you claim is so obviouse, so you pretend the question is a joke.

Coward.

Can't be said enough.

You are a COWARD.




"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:38 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


LOL !

Again, you not liking my answer doesn't make me a " coward ".

You're frelling deranged.

Where do I GET that definition? 1000's of years of history, through countless cultures.

You REALLY need me to document all of human history ? NOW you're just playing games here.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 7:54 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Defined that way for thousands of year...well except for those places it was not. Like cultures that define it as multiple spouses. Then you have places that included same sex unions as marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

So your definition of marriage is just that yours. It is not a definitive definition of marriage.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, November 12, 2013 8:00 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Again, and again, and again: Marriage has NOT been defined for thousands of years as one man and one woman. I debunked that thoroughly, with cites, so Rap can go on parroting it until the cows come home but that does not make it true, period.

Romans had same-sex marriage; Greeks did; many other countries did and do all throughout history. T H A T I S F A C T.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 5:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:

Again, and again, and again: Marriage has NOT been defined for thousands of years as one man and one woman. I debunked that thoroughly, with cites, so Rap can go on parroting it until the cows come home but that does not make it true, period.

Romans had same-sex marriage; Greeks did; many other countries did and do all throughout history. T H A T I S F A C T.




Greeks and Romans, huh? And look what happened to them!

Save for rare, unique anomalies, where YOU claim such same sex unions existed, the overwhelming vast majority of marriages have been , for 1000's of years, man + woman. Well predating the fables of The Bible.



Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

Resident USA Freedom Fundie

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 13, 2013 9:51 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Greeks and Romans, huh? And look what happened to them!



They had empires that were so powerful and advanced that we still talk about them today. Fun note that Rome fell after adopting Christianity which was worried about who married who.

Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:Save for rare, unique anomalies, where YOU claim such same sex unions existed, the overwhelming vast majority of marriages have been , for 1000's of years, man + woman. Well predating the fables of The Bible.


For one it isn't just a claim. People have given multiply citations. Historical same sex marriages are fact.

Second, using majority as an argument is simply an rgumentum ad numerum, which is a logical fallacy.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:02 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


They are far from "rare, unique anomalies", they exist throughout the world and throughout history. And plenty of citations have been provided, which I didn't even know about until I looked it up, so it has nothing to do with "me", it's just historical fact.

Give it up already. Your claim has been debunked so many times, continuing to lie about it is getting pretty disgusting...and pretty obviously pathetically desperate.

If Wikipedia isn't "scholarly" enough for him, here are some more, from such left-wing propagandists as Yale--yeah, we know, "educators" don't know shit:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&am
p;context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2503%2526context%253Dfss_papers%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm3g-8j65ZGkoAK-51evCqzlRZWkOA%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.yale.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2503%26context%3Dfss_papers%22


There's also the book, with very cohesive details of same-sex marriage through the ages: http://www.amazon.com/Same-Sex-Unions-Premodern-Europe-Boswell/dp/0679
751645


And from http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html, I found this particularly illuminating:
Quote:

Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom.

In Mesopotamia documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

The main considerations in same-sex relationships in early history were often love, beauty, and excellence of character rather than gender. There was also a cultural-religious basis for homosexual practice. Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus. And the epics of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, contain poetic passages that suggested homoerotic love to the educated hearer. (Dynes).

Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).

The sacred texts in the Hindu tradition, the Vedas, did not restrict homosexuality. Mixed-race relationships were considerably more offensive in the early tradition.

Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

Hindu tradition provides for some freedom for praiseworthy and devoted same-sex unions within communities, where the elders officially decide what constitutes an acceptable marriage.

Confucianism strongly emphasized the importance of family and lineage, but did not punish homosexuality as severely as it did adultery. “As long as one fulfilled familial and social obligations . . . Confucians did not single out homosexual behavior for special rebuke” (Ishay). On the contrary, there existed occasions for same-sex bonds or contracts for both women and men.

Examples of same-sex behavior, including transgenerational same-sex unions, have emerged everywhere from New Guinea to Polynesia (and were also prevalent in feudal Japan). The most numerous early accounts of same-sex, transgendered unions exist from European encounters with indigenous people in both North and South America. Individuals, both male and female, assumed characteristics and roles of the opposite gender and lived out those roles within their tribes. These relationships are easily perceived as “homosexual” by outside observers, but it is clear that the Western delineations of heterosexuality and homosexuality would not have been understood within these societies. Nevertheless, these same-sex marriages had equal cultural and legal recognition within their communities and offered special advantages for the couples, particularly for women berdaches (Rupp, Eskridge).

Same-sex marriages were found among cultures in Africa, and also included an arrangement known as “female husbands.” Often barren, these women assumed the cultural roles of men, including having the same rights as men-—which included seeking damages if her wife should have relations outside of their union without her consent. The berdache tradition of same-sex marriage, in various forms, is also well documented throughout Asia, from eunuchs in China to hijras in India (Eskridge).

The rise of Christianity and dominance of the church in Medieval Europe was largely detrimental for same-sex relationships. There is some evidence that same-sex relationships enjoyed relative freedom through the early Middle Ages. European secular law had few recorded limitations on same-sex behavior, and there is even evidence in the literature of the clergy of compassion for homosexuality, notably within the clergy itself (Pickett).

The church seemed to be tolerant of same-sex unions in practice and made some provisions for ceremonies commemorating the companionate brotherhood. John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality documents homosexual marriages performed by gay clerics dating back to the fourth century.

It was in the thirteenth century, however, that the first laws against sodomy emerged and began to be enforced. Through the next several centuries in the West, all manner of behavior deemed deviant or unnatural began to be condemned, causing a shift from the earlier belief that same-sex unions were “problematic” to the belief that same-sex unions were a serious threat to society--and, like heretics, witches, and Jews, practitioners of such unions were violently repelled. Moreover, by the nineteenth century, heterosexuality became understood as the standard sexual orientation. Deviations to the norm became understood as diseases which, if not treated, should be suppressed. As a result, same-sex marriage was largely prohibited throughout the West. Meanwhile, missionaries from Western churches forcibly converted indigenous practices (Eskridge). The peak of discrimination came under the Nazi regime, where homosexuals were among the many victims classified as of an inferior race (Ishay).



The picture which history paints is very interesting to me; it shows pretty clearly that it was the Christian religion, and ITS INTERPRETATION of homosexuality, which overtook the world and changed things. Essentially, homosexuality became "just as bad as" heretics, witches and Jews. That says a lot to me, and says that any intelligent person, knowing history, can find no logical problem with same-sex marriage except THAT IT GOES AGAINST THE STRICTURE OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION from ONLY the thirteenth century on. What does that say about Rap's boringly determined attitude?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 23:51 - 10 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL