I don't understand the desire or the utility in creating two terms for the same type of relationship, in both the functional and the legal sense, on the basis of the genders involved in the relationship. The only use I can think of is that it would convey the sexual orientation of the persons involved.
For instance if you said, "He is married", you would know that "he" is straight. Whereas if you said, "He is in a civil union", you would know that "he" is gay. Why the desire for the distinction? Why is this such important information?
It seems to me that even if two terms were made they may not be used in many situations. For instance, if an employer is not allowed to ask about your sexual orientation on your resume, then that employer wouldn't be allowed to ask if you are married, or in a civil union because the sexual orientation information would be contained within the response. So in this case the employer would have to revert to using a single term that is free from any information regarding the potential employee's sexual orientation. So if two terms were made it might be entirely useless in employer/employee relationships, and who knows how many other circumstances.
Of course I'm assuming that civil unions refer explicitly to homosexual "marriage" relationships. But if civil unions are the same as marriages, than why would there ever be heterosexual civil unions? They'd be married. If civil unions aren't the same as marriages, what are the distinctions and why are they there?
Seems to me it is the arguments against Gay Marriage that say that we can't
You are welcome to point to the consensus of material that refers to marriage as between those of the same gender. All official sources even a basic dictionary defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Even you have to add "gay" to marriage to denote the new definition since the old definition would not express a common undestanding.
The only issue I have with Bill Maher's argument is that he goes back to adults "pairing" off. I am still trying to figure out why society is worried about a marriage being defined as two. There is a rich history of marriages in the world that have had more than two people involved, why is North America so uptight about polygamy.
to nick's comment...one above the poly human mating reply...
nah, i think we all think of marriage as a (hopefully, ideally) life-long commitment between two people, usually to raise children...sure this is usually between a man and a woman, but then is living together, as long as it is a man and a woman, marriage?? people wouldn't be confused by the term "marriage" when relating to the same sex...because marriage means more than "man and woman"...people clearly see and know what marriage means...commitment (hopefully), fidelity (hopefully), love and affection (hopefully), little rug-rats running about (hopefully)...
marriage, like the human species, if broad and complex (and, like people, too often fails)...i also think it is a beautiful thing that should be shared by as many loving adults as possible
inclusion is a beautiful option...everyone should try it
Yes and in the other topic I asked a question twice. The second time just before Fellows locked it for an hour.
I haven't received an answer from any of the " this is from the bible " types. So I'll try a 3rd time. From where in the bible are you guys basing this on? Were's the passage that says gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet I don't get an answer this time either.
Yes and in the other topic I asked a question twice. The second time just before Fellows locked it for an hour.
I haven't received an answer from any of the " this is from the bible " types. So I'll try a 3rd time. From where in the bible are you guys basing this on? Were's the passage that says gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet I don't get an answer this time either.
But you see, not every American should "have" to live according to any particular religious dictation even if it were a part of a religion.
Are we a pluralistic democacy or are we a theocracy?
I for one sure hope we are a pluralalistic democracy.
In Genesis 19, Lot was in the town of Sodom, and he was with two angels who were so hot that the men of Sodom wanted to screw 'em. But Lot offered his two young daughters to them instead. \
Quote:
19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth, 19:2 and he said, ?See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant?s house, stay all night, wash your feet, and you will rise up early, and go on your way.?
They said, ?No, but we will stay in the street all night.?
19:3 He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 19:5 They called to Lot, and said to him, ?Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.?
19:6 Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. 19:7 He said, ?Please, my brothers, don?t act so wickedly. 19:8 See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you. Only don?t do anything to these men, because they have come under the shadow of my roof.?
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
In Genesis 19, Lot was in the town of Sodom, and he was with two angels who were so hot that the men of Sodom wanted to screw 'em. But Lot offered his two young daughters to them instead. \
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
You forgot the best part:
Later that night, apparently despondent over the loss of his wife, Lot gets drunk and screws his daughters
Sure they helped out a bit. . . . But I think he probably got the word out to blame them . . .
and another note: I think that leviticus is simply stating the fact: 'you can't lie with a man as you would a woman' after all they have different equipment
i know... i know . . . it probably says something different though
and another note: I think that leviticus is simply stating the fact: 'you can't lie with a man as you would a woman' after all they have different equipment
i know... i know . . . it probably says something different though
that's an interesting interpretation. i wonder how it compares in the ancient tongue. maybe leviticus was supposed to be like one of those kama sutra books, but old hebrew stile.
19:3 He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 19:5 They called to Lot, and said to him, ?Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.?
Was this the Larry Flynt edition? The bible I knew had this:
Quote:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
I don't suppose that over the two thousand-odd years that the bible has been around, and with all of the translations over those centuries that some of the original meanings could have been changed. No, not possible.
As far as Leviticus, let's not pick and choose here; he also wrote:
Leviticus 20:27: "a man or woman who is a medium or spiritualist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them"
Leviticus 19:19: "do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
So, John Edward better watch his back. Him with his contacting the dead and evil cotton-poly blends..
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Leviticus also prescribes the same penalty for cursing one's parents. Other sexual sins also merited the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality.
If we took his advice literally for all of his proclamations, let's just say they're would be a lot more parking available.
In Genesis 19, Lot was in the town of Sodom, and he was with two angels who were so hot that the men of Sodom wanted to screw 'em. But Lot offered his two young daughters to them instead. \
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
Yes and you can't tie your horse up in town either.
The Bible is an old book. It fit well with the masses of that era. Maybe its purpose was to scare the **** out of the people back then to end the lawlessness and bring religious organizations more power and control. Sort of like you're either with us or against us.
I was born and raised Catholic. Then I realized how close minded they are. Our loving Creator gave us Freewill. I choose to use it both spiritually and intellectually. I don't need a middleman (organized religion) to go to the source. We all have seen how "pure" some of those priests can be.
Comments
For instance if you said, "He is married", you would know that "he" is straight. Whereas if you said, "He is in a civil union", you would know that "he" is gay. Why the desire for the distinction? Why is this such important information?
It seems to me that even if two terms were made they may not be used in many situations. For instance, if an employer is not allowed to ask about your sexual orientation on your resume, then that employer wouldn't be allowed to ask if you are married, or in a civil union because the sexual orientation information would be contained within the response. So in this case the employer would have to revert to using a single term that is free from any information regarding the potential employee's sexual orientation. So if two terms were made it might be entirely useless in employer/employee relationships, and who knows how many other circumstances.
Of course I'm assuming that civil unions refer explicitly to homosexual "marriage" relationships. But if civil unions are the same as marriages, than why would there ever be heterosexual civil unions? They'd be married. If civil unions aren't the same as marriages, what are the distinctions and why are they there?
Originally posted by pfflam
Seems to me it is the arguments against Gay Marriage that say that we can't
You are welcome to point to the consensus of material that refers to marriage as between those of the same gender. All official sources even a basic dictionary defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Even you have to add "gay" to marriage to denote the new definition since the old definition would not express a common undestanding.
Nick
nah, i think we all think of marriage as a (hopefully, ideally) life-long commitment between two people, usually to raise children...sure this is usually between a man and a woman, but then is living together, as long as it is a man and a woman, marriage?? people wouldn't be confused by the term "marriage" when relating to the same sex...because marriage means more than "man and woman"...people clearly see and know what marriage means...commitment (hopefully), fidelity (hopefully), love and affection (hopefully), little rug-rats running about (hopefully)...
marriage, like the human species, if broad and complex (and, like people, too often fails)...i also think it is a beautiful thing that should be shared by as many loving adults as possible
inclusion is a beautiful option...everyone should try it
g
Since the other topic went down in a ball of flames...
I thought it would be good to bump a more lighthearted look at the issue.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Can I get a bump bump?
How about not bumping threads unless you have something constructive to add?
The last thread on Gay Marriage was closed for a reason.
I haven't received an answer from any of the " this is from the bible " types. So I'll try a 3rd time. From where in the bible are you guys basing this on? Were's the passage that says gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet I don't get an answer this time either.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yes and in the other topic I asked a question twice. The second time just before Fellows locked it for an hour.
I haven't received an answer from any of the " this is from the bible " types. So I'll try a 3rd time. From where in the bible are you guys basing this on? Were's the passage that says gays can't marry? I'm willing to bet I don't get an answer this time either.
But you see, not every American should "have" to live according to any particular religious dictation even if it were a part of a religion.
Are we a pluralistic democacy or are we a theocracy?
I for one sure hope we are a pluralalistic democracy.
Fellowship
19:1 The two angels came to Sodom at evening. Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. Lot saw them, and rose up to meet them. He bowed himself with his face to the earth, 19:2 and he said, ?See now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant?s house, stay all night, wash your feet, and you will rise up early, and go on your way.?
They said, ?No, but we will stay in the street all night.?
19:3 He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 19:5 They called to Lot, and said to him, ?Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.?
19:6 Lot went out to them to the door, and shut the door after him. 19:7 He said, ?Please, my brothers, don?t act so wickedly. 19:8 See now, I have two virgin daughters. Please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them what seems good to you. Only don?t do anything to these men, because they have come under the shadow of my roof.?
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
Almost as ironic as taking sexual advice from a celibate octogenarian in a white dress who only kisses airports.
AO quote of the month.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
AO quote of the month.
thanks.
always liked that line...
to be fair, I've probably paraphrased from old dennis miller or bill maher or some other comedian
Originally posted by BRussell
In Genesis 19, Lot was in the town of Sodom, and he was with two angels who were so hot that the men of Sodom wanted to screw 'em. But Lot offered his two young daughters to them instead.
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
You forgot the best part:
Later that night, apparently despondent over the loss of his wife, Lot gets drunk and screws his daughters
Sure they helped out a bit. . . . But I think he probably got the word out to blame them . . .
and another note: I think that leviticus is simply stating the fact: 'you can't lie with a man as you would a woman' after all they have different equipment
i know... i know . . . it probably says something different though
Originally posted by pfflam
and another note: I think that leviticus is simply stating the fact: 'you can't lie with a man as you would a woman' after all they have different equipment
i know... i know . . . it probably says something different though
that's an interesting interpretation. i wonder how it compares in the ancient tongue. maybe leviticus was supposed to be like one of those kama sutra books, but old hebrew stile.
Neither shall a garment mingled of different fabrics come upon thee
(Leviticus 19:19)
Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard
(Leviticus 19:27)
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death
(Leviticus 20:10)
19:3 He urged them greatly, and they came in with him, and entered into his house. He made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. 19:4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter. 19:5 They called to Lot, and said to him, ?Where are the men who came in to you this night? Bring them out to us, that we may have sex with them.?
Was this the Larry Flynt edition? The bible I knew had this:
And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
I don't suppose that over the two thousand-odd years that the bible has been around, and with all of the translations over those centuries that some of the original meanings could have been changed. No, not possible.
As far as Leviticus, let's not pick and choose here; he also wrote:
Leviticus 20:27: "a man or woman who is a medium or spiritualist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them"
Leviticus 19:19: "do not plant your field with two kinds of seed, do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
So, John Edward better watch his back. Him with his contacting the dead and evil cotton-poly blends..
Leviticus 20:13:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
Leviticus also prescribes the same penalty for cursing one's parents. Other sexual sins also merited the death penalty: adultery, incest and bestiality.
If we took his advice literally for all of his proclamations, let's just say they're would be a lot more parking available.
Originally posted by BRussell
In Genesis 19, Lot was in the town of Sodom, and he was with two angels who were so hot that the men of Sodom wanted to screw 'em. But Lot offered his two young daughters to them instead.
Then of course God destroyed the whole place, as well as Lot's wife for even looking.
Anyway, it seems to me to not have anything to do with homosexuality, but rather that you're not allowed to rape angels. Daughters, that's OK. But not angels.
Leviticus explicitly says you can't "lie with a man as with a woman," but there are tons of weird rules in the Old Testament, many of which no one pays any attention to anymore, like you have to be stoned to death if you look at a woman who's menstruating I think.
Yes and you can't tie your horse up in town either.
That's it?
Well thanks for the info.
amd similar tactics from the past.
http://billmon.org/archives/001112.html
True peace is not merely the absence of tension.
It is the presence of justice. ??Martin Luther King Jr.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
The Gropinator spreading fear...
It's impossible to read that quote from him without imagining it being said in a cartoon Hans und Franz accent...
"All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing..."
I was born and raised Catholic. Then I realized how close minded they are. Our loving Creator gave us Freewill. I choose to use it both spiritually and intellectually. I don't need a middleman (organized religion) to go to the source. We all have seen how "pure" some of those priests can be.