REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Illinois Just Became 15th State To Allow Equality

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Friday, November 8, 2013 14:46
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2901
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 9:54 PM

NIKI2

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


Quote:

Illinois Sends Bill Allowing Gay Marriage to Governor

The Illinois House of Representatives voted Tuesday to allow same-sex couples to wed, ending months of delay over the issue in the Capitol and clearing the way for Illinois to become the 15th state, along with the District of Columbia, to permit gay couples to marry.

The vote was 61 to 54, mostly along partisan lines, with only three Republicans voting yes.

“In Illinois, we tried civil unions and that separate status has time and time again proved to fall short,” said State Representative Greg Harris, a sponsor of the bill, urging his House colleagues to approve the measure on Tuesday.

The measure passed the Illinois Senate in February, but for procedural reasons it had to be voted on there again. On Tuesday, the Senate quickly approved changes the House made to the bill, sending it to the desk of Gov. Pat Quinn, a Democrat who has said he will sign it. Illinois couples could begin marrying on June 1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/us/illinois-sends-bill-allowing-gay-
marriage-to-governor.html?_r=0


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

Tuesday, November 5, 2013 9:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Dads can marry their daughters ?

Threesomes can now be wed ?

Wooo hooo!!

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 6, 2013 2:14 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Dads can marry their daughters ?




That's what you got from the article?

I can see why you're excited!

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

Wednesday, November 6, 2013 9:48 AM

NIKI2

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


Amazing, ain't it, ElvisC? He's gotta post SOMETHING...ANYTHING...to snark, but he can't even come up with anything that makes sense. Sigh...

Yeah, Brenda; little by little, we're chipping away. I actually think the idiocy on the right is HELPING in this case; the more they spout their ignorance and hatred, the more they bring people to the side of common sense, especially the younger people, who will be running this country eventually and see the issue for just what it is: simple equal rights.

And on a related matter, Chris Christie has come around to reality, as well:
Quote:

Chris Christie ahead of the GOP curve on same-sex marriage

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie made headlines when he backed away from his opposition to same-sex marriage in New Jersey. Although he had initially indicated that he would challenge the recent court decision, Christie reversed course and announced that he would follow the law of his state.

A growing number of Republicans have already backed away from their opposition to same-sex marriage. Christie is just one of those who have changed the tone of the party on this cultural question -- a group that includes Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Robert Portman and former Vice President Dick Cheney -- in an era when polarization has become stronger on almost every other issue. As Mitt Romney adviser David Kochel said, "Opposing the freedom to marry is a loser for our party and serves to drive away a growing number of voters who have turned the page."

So, even though Christie is taking a risk through his recent announcement, the odds are that many other Republicans won't be far behind. The gay rights movement has profoundly shifted the debate and advanced the cause of gay rights far beyond what anyone had imagined just a few years ago.

By taking one of the most familiar and central conservative arguments of our era, marriage, and embracing it as one of their own, the movement has gained legitimacy for the right of gay Americans to build their own families. There will be huge pressure on Republicans in the coming years to get on the right side of this issue and movement activists have made it easier for leaders in the GOP to come around to their side.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/opinion/zelizer-chris-christie-gay-right
s
/



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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 3:19 AM

ELVISCHRIST




Raptor still can't explain why same-sex marriage is exactly like marrying your daughter or marrying in threes.


I know there's lots of incest and polygamy in christianity. Maybe his religious beliefs won't let him think outside the box.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 6:08 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:


Raptor still can't explain why same-sex marriage is exactly like marrying your daughter or marrying in threes.



Still? I have done so, here, plenty of times. It's called social history. And the biological fact that only those of different sexes can produce an offspring. I'll never understand why " marriage " can't just mean 1 thing, and other situations can't be called something else. They clearly are different.

Quote:



I know there's lots of incest and polygamy in christianity. Maybe his religious beliefs won't let him think outside the box.



Funny. You're one of those folks who view Atheism as a " religion ", huh?

Muslims have multiple wives as well. Or did that fact escape you 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  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 7:30 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Still? I have done so, here, plenty of times. It's called social history. And the biological fact that only those of different sexes can produce an offspring. I'll never understand why " marriage " can't just mean 1 thing, and other situations can't be called something else. They clearly are different.



...because the whole sperate but equal thing is never that.

Plus marriage today has nothing to do with being able to have children.



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

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 9:21 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Threesomes can now be wed ?



If it's informed, consenting adults, what's your problem with it?


"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  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:51 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Equality is a concept that's been warped & twisted to mean everyone is exactly the same.

We aren't.

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  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 10:53 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Threesomes can now be wed ?



If it's informed, consenting adults, what's your problem with it?


"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."



Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.

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  

Thursday, November 7, 2013 11:42 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Because words mean things


Tell that to Obama.



Quote:

& " marriage " isn't a threesome.]

Just a matter of time and the courts.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:43 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Hi Niki :)

With or without your permission, Imma just be real here....

GAY MARRIAGE SHOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL ANYWHERE IN THE US. PERIOD.

Neither should Responsible Gun Ownership, the ability to run a "Ma and Pa" business without being taxed to death, and the ability to make a living wage working full time in retail.

As long as the government doesnt force an individual, and individual church or an entire religion to recognize and/or endorse such a union, I don't see what the problem is here....



I really do hope you answer because we're actually in agreement on something here.

Warmest Regards in These Cold Months Ahead Niki,
~Jack :)


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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 1:57 PM

MAL4PREZ


LOL x 1000!!!

Rappy still can't tell the difference between two men and a man and his daughter. He also can't tell the difference between the numbers two and three. Maybe he should go back to first grade and go through the whole process again. Maybe something will stick this time around.

*---------------------------------------*
The French Revolution would have never happened if Marie Antoinette had just given every peasant an iPhone.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:01 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I now present AURaptor in "Arguing With Myself"


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.




Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Muslims have multiple wives as well. Or did that fact escape you as well ?



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

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:06 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I now present AURaptor in "Arguing With Myself"


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.




Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Muslims have multiple wives as well. Or did that fact escape you as well ?



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



Bwah! Excellent response! I nearly spat tea over my laptop.

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:32 PM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Dads can marry their daughters ?

Threesomes can now be wed ?

Wooo hooo!!



What a sad, pathetic little man you are.




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

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

Thursday, November 7, 2013 2:40 PM

NIKI2

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


Ditto, Mark. He keeps tossing out those same tired inanities, totally ignoring the fact that both polygamy AND incest are illegal in this country...there are LAWS AGAINST THEM. He can't play the "slippery slope" game because there's never going to be a demand for them to be legalized, yet he keeps equating same-sex marriage with them. It's childish beyond belief, but that's our Rap; anything to post SOMETHING negative.


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

Friday, November 8, 2013 3:35 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Threesomes can now be wed ?



If it's informed, consenting adults, what's your problem with it?


"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."



Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.

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






You've never been able to define what exactly a "marriage" is.

Without relying on ANY religious basis, what is marriage, and what is your legal reasoning for defining it?

Is marriage solely about procreation? So you'll outlaw all contraception among married people?

(Gay people don't get abortions, by the way)

Is marriage only between two people? You say muslims have more than one wife. So do many mormons. You voted for a mormon for president, didn't you?

Are you able to actually define what you think marriage really is, and do so without using religion as a crutch?

"Social history" is not a valid definition, because you can't show any relevant social history to support your claim. "This is the way it's always been" is neither true, nor a valid basis for refusing to change.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 3:37 AM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Threesomes can now be wed ?



If it's informed, consenting adults, what's your problem with it?


"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."





Bingo. Is there a valid reason why any two - or MORE - consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into a marriage?

"Because it kills my boner to think about it" isn't a valid reason.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 7:45 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
I now present AURaptor in "Arguing With Myself"


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.




Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Muslims have multiple wives as well. Or did that fact escape you as well ?



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



You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part.

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  

Friday, November 8, 2013 7:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

Bingo. Is there a valid reason why any two - or MORE - consenting adults shouldn't be allowed to enter into a marriage?

"Because it kills my boner to think about it" isn't a valid reason.



Then why aren't those who pushed for gay marriage now pushing for polygamy ?

Ask the gay guys if their boners are being killed with the thought of 3 women and 2 guys all being married.

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  

Friday, November 8, 2013 7:59 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part.



The only thing that is dishonest here is you. Marriage has vastly different definitions to different people. You understand this but willingly ignore it.

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

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 8:13 AM

NIKI2

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


"You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part."

Exactly like taking "same-sex marriage" and equating it to polygamy and incest, which are totally unrelated...why not go for man-on-dog while you're at it?


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

Friday, November 8, 2013 8:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part.



The only thing that is dishonest here is you. Marriage has vastly different definitions to different people. You understand this but willingly ignore it.

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



How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.

But all that matters is YOUR definition, huh?

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  

Friday, November 8, 2013 8:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part."

Exactly like taking "same-sex marriage" and equating it to polygamy and incest, which are totally unrelated...why not go for man-on-dog while you're at it?




How are they unrelated, Niki ?

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  

Friday, November 8, 2013 10:00 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.


Absolutley true. Even the depraved and debauched ancient Romans only sanctioned marraiges between one man and one woman. There were no gay or group marraiges there, and there weren't any gay or group marraiges in ancient Greece either. Greece in it's Golden Age became the foundation of democracy, but they still drew a moral line against sexual deviancy.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 10:09 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.


Absolutley true. Even the depraved and debauched ancient Romans only sanctioned marraiges between one man and one woman. There were no gay or group marraiges there, and there weren't any gay or group marraiges in ancient Greece either. Greece in it's Golden Age became the foundation of democracy, but they still drew a moral line against sexual deviancy.



Are you being sarcastic?

So much wrong with this post, you simply must be.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 11:44 AM

STORYMARK


Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Threesomes can now be wed ?



If it's informed, consenting adults, what's your problem with it?


"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."



Because words mean things & " marriage " isn't a threesome.

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






You've never been able to define what exactly a "marriage" is.

Without relying on ANY religious basis, what is marriage, and what is your legal reasoning for defining it?

Is marriage solely about procreation? So you'll outlaw all contraception among married people?

(Gay people don't get abortions, by the way)

Is marriage only between two people? You say muslims have more than one wife. So do many mormons. You voted for a mormon for president, didn't you?

Are you able to actually define what you think marriage really is, and do so without using religion as a crutch?

"Social history" is not a valid definition, because you can't show any relevant social history to support your claim. "This is the way it's always been" is neither true, nor a valid basis for refusing to change.



What a shock, he was asked yet again to provide a clear definition, and he danced around it.




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

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 1:29 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.

But all that matters is YOUR definition, huh?




This is funny, especially when you're trying to tell everyone here that all that matters is YOUR definition.

A definition you refuse to put into words, except to keep adding more and more qualifiers onto what you've previously claimed, and which has been clearly shown to be pure BS.

"Historically" - really? Through more than two million years of human history, you're absolutely rock-solid sure that marriage has been defined only as one-man-one-woman?

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

"The vast majority of the western world" - Again, that's a mighty beg qualifier, and no offer of evidence to support such a claim.

You say a man can only have one wife. I'm sure you mean "at a time", right? Otherwise, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gringrich and Ronald Reagan all have some pretty big 'splainin' to do, since none of them meet your standards.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 1:31 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.


Absolutley true. Even the depraved and debauched ancient Romans only sanctioned marraiges between one man and one woman. There were no gay or group marraiges there, and there weren't any gay or group marraiges in ancient Greece either. Greece in it's Golden Age became the foundation of democracy, but they still drew a moral line against sexual deviancy.




Bro, do you even history?


Never try to lecture anyone on "marraige" if you can't spell the word. Your "absolutely true" historical "facts" are even more pure BS than your hero Lindsey Graham's Benghazi "death blow" lies.

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

Friday, November 8, 2013 1:33 PM

ELVISCHRIST


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
"You can take any random comments, out of context, and try to do the same trick as you're doing here. Pretty pathetic, and intellectually dishonest, on your part."

Exactly like taking "same-sex marriage" and equating it to polygamy and incest, which are totally unrelated...why not go for man-on-dog while you're at it?




How are they unrelated, Niki ?

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





Taking all the religious aspects out of the equation (which you say you don't have to begin with), what is your objection to same-sex marriage?



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

Friday, November 8, 2013 1:41 PM

NIKI2

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


Uh, if you're talking history, he's wrong:
Quote:

Some early Western societies integrated same-sex relationships. The practice of same-sex love in ancient Greece often took the form of pederasty, which was limited in duration and in many cases (but not all) co-existed with marriage. In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component.

Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Lucian describes a debate in which a proponent of same-sex pederastic relationships describes them as being more stable than heterosexual relationships and goes on to express the hope that he will be buried with his lover after they have passed their lives together.[29] Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages.

Amongst the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperor Nero. The first recorded mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.

At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.]The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. First with one of his freedman, Pythagoras, to whom Nero took the role of the bride, and later as a groom Nero married a young boy, who resembled one of his concubines,[32] named Sporus in a very public ceremony... with all the solemnities of matrimony, and lived with him as his spouse A friend gave the "bride" away "as required by law." The marriage was celebrated separately in both Greece and Rome in extravagant public ceremonies.[33] Emperor Elagabalus referred to his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, as his husband.[34] He also married an athlete named Zoticus in a lavish public ceremony in Rome amidst the rejoicings of the citizens.

In late medieval France, it is possible the practice of entering a legal contract of "enbrotherment" (affrèrement) provided a vehicle for civil unions between unrelated male adults who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse. This legal category may represent one of the earliest forms of sanctioned same-sex unions.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)

Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.

These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[12]

An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[13] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions)]


It was the adoption of CHRISTIANITY that made same-sex marriage illegal in most WESTERN civilization. It was still practiced in many other parts of the world; ergo, "one man, one woman" is a relatively recent, RELIGIOUS practice, and the only argument against same-sex marriage can be one based on religion, period.

When it comes to the concept of "marriage", it has varied greatly from place to place and time to time throughout history.

As far as multiple-partner marriages, "the practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Throughout the "polygyny belt" stretching from Senegal in the west to Tanzania in the east, as many as a third to a half of married women are in polygynous unions. Historically, polygyny was partially accepted in ancient Hebrew society, in classical China, and in sporadic traditional Native American, African and Polynesian cultures. In India it was known to have been practiced during ancient times. It was accepted in ancient Greece, until the Roman Empire and the Roman Catholic Church." (Wiki) Even Greece had polygyny in early times.

Also, "Some polygynous marriages are same-sex. In some societies such as the Lovedu in South Africa, aristocratic women who can afford to pay bridewealth in cattle can take wives as assume male political roles. Such a marriage could also be considered polyandrous since the main spouse is a woman." (Wiki)

In the Himalayan Mountains. there was the marriage of all brothers in a family to the same wife ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygyny)

"Fraternal polyandry was traditionally practiced among nomadic Tibetans in Nepal, parts of China and part of northern India, in which two or more brothers are married to the same wife, with the wife having equal 'sexual access' to them." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy#Polygyny)

"Marriage" has meant many things throughout history...to say it was always one thing is false. The simple fact is that there is no demand for multiple-partner marriages in our society, and we have evolved past acceptance of incestuous unions, so there is no equating them with same-sex marriage. It's just more bullshit from the right, and even "the right" isn't as stupidly determined to keep trying to equate them, just the EXTREME right, people like Rap.

We've had this ARGUMENT so many times--because it's not a debate, the historic facts show that clearly, that I should think we'd be sick of it.

Fact: Same-sex marriages and unions have existed throughout history. "Marriage" of one man and one woman was instituted by religion and adopted by many societies, but not all of them. Same-sex marriages and unions are now being accepted by more and more societies. OUR society, and most Western societies, have no desire to re-institute polygamy, polyandry or incestuous unions, and they have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. That's all.


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

Friday, November 8, 2013 2:46 PM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:

How am I being in the least bit dishonest. Historically, for the vast majority of the western world, marriage has been 1 man + 1 woman. That's not remotely up for debate.

But all that matters is YOUR definition, huh?



You don't get it, my definition does not matter, nor does yours. The only definition that does matter is the legal one that is discriminatory if it is based in any way on a person's sex.

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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Kamala Harris for President
Mon, November 4, 2024 13:06 - 633 posts
Elections; 2024
Mon, November 4, 2024 12:15 - 4487 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 10:48 - 1181 posts
South Korea
Mon, November 4, 2024 10:41 - 3 posts
Paris traumatises Japanese tourists
Mon, November 4, 2024 10:33 - 8 posts
Japanese Culture, S.Korea movies are now outselling American entertainment products
Mon, November 4, 2024 10:07 - 48 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:24 - 7419 posts
Favourite Novels Of All Time?
Mon, November 4, 2024 09:14 - 43 posts
Futurist movement, Techno Science Optimists
Mon, November 4, 2024 06:45 - 64 posts
Disgruntled Tepublicans vow to move to Australia
Mon, November 4, 2024 06:27 - 75 posts
The Yemen Thread
Mon, November 4, 2024 05:38 - 43 posts
Belorussia, Belarusian news...
Mon, November 4, 2024 05:29 - 62 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL