|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by sigma:
JaTo, I always enjoy our discussions, but I want to clarify something:
You are considering a "civil union" and a "marriage" to be equal as far as rights and benefits go, so when I read that, I only read a simple change of vernacular.
For all intents and purposes that I can see, yes.
Originally posted by sigma:
And actually, the only real difference that I can see between the two terms, is the religious observance. Being that a 'marriage' is what is "traditionally" observed by religion and a "civil union" is the same thing, just observed by the government.
Somewhat. Redefining a religious and secular union whose very definition that has withstood millenia of change is messing something that has been commonly held by religions and secular/religions/pagan governments of the world throughout time. In short, marriage is religious and could be considered secular as well (not all that are married observe any religious practice or notion); it doesn't change the fact that the very definition of "marriage" has been known to be (1) man and (1) woman in secular, pagan or the most religiously-devout Christian civilizations that have existed on this planet.
I don't think the definition of marriage is necessarily tied to religious principle solely, nor do I think it totally in the secular domain, given it's pagan roots:
It's akin to changing definitions of nature; a 70-degree day in Summer doesn't constitute a name-change of the entire season of Summer to Winter...
In short, let's call something different than marriage, well, something different than marriage and give it the same status and rights as observed by law, i.e, civil unions, joinings, bonding, pairing, whatever, just call it something different because it is.
Originally posted by sigma:
So, being that there is a seperation of Church and State, and being that we don't want to discriminate against anyone, shouldn't the government label your union as a "Civil Union", rather than a marriage, no matter what sex you and your partner are and leave the term "marriage" for the churches and the common vernacular (because it's just easier to say -- what's the past tense of "civil union")
For the most part. Any sociologist worth his salt will tell you there are a MASSIVE number of norms, both religious and secular in nature, that are associated with marriage. The concept/definition of marriage and the religious nature of it are extraordinarily difficult to seperate in most any culture that I'm aware of, so any government involvement of changing or "opening" up the nature of marriage to include anything past what it has for millenia has a LOT of homework ahead of them and SERIOUS discourse over the matter.
I totally agree that under current US law, gays and lesbians are discriminated against. I think this can be easily fixed without destroying/changing an institution that has ages of heritage behind it and alienating those with strongly-held religious beliefs.
Just call it something different than marriage and offer up the same rights, protection and punishment under law. I'm repeating myself here; let me know if I've misunderstood or misrepresented any point you were trying to make.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
So seperating your Oreo to lick out the white center is deviant? Why is being deviant ground for descrimination? Don't deviants have rights too? Great job marginalizing homosexuals. David Duke would be SO proud. let's put those darkies back in their place while we are at it. Quote:
I don't know, but men and women have been getting married for millenia, in all societies. I wonder why that is?
Men have been marrying more than one woman at a time throughout the millenia, let's bring that back too. I am serious. Let people define for themselves who and how many people they want to marry. Break the chains of discrimination.
Quote:
All your points lend themselves to heterosexuality. Interesting.....
Yeah, they also lead to multiple sexual partners, what does your precious bible say about that? Oh yeah...Paul told an early Christian church that it's memebers were to be men of good standing with one wife and women were [censored].
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099 |
I think the question we all should ask is why our government and the media seem to be making this topic more important than others like "Why our tech jobs being shipped overseas?". I could care less if two gays get married. It doesn't really affect me. One of my older brothers is gay. Do I love him less? No. Does it bother me that he is gay? No Do I think it's morally wrong to be gay? No. If he wants to get married to another man, would I protest? No! I have more important things to worry about.
--Matt
2003 Sonic Blue SVT Cobra Coupe
2003 RedFire SVT Cobra Convertable
2005 Dark Toreador Red F150 XLT 4x4
2000 Black SVT Contour - Beater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by cpurser:
1) You are being a hypocrite. First you slam my link to family.org, then you link to gaycity.com, errr, I mean sfgate.com.
No, i was making a point that sources are like statistics. Remember your Samuel Clemens. "There are lies, damn lies and statistics".
Originally posted by cpurser:
2) One of the articles I listed simply states that the study linking genetics to homosexuality was wrong, and it gave facts supporting the article. There was no bias to it. Since homosexuality is NOT genetic, then the gay activists have no basis for marriage.
Genetics has little to do with a marriage that by choice or medical issues cannot issue offsrping. The only part genetics plays in marriage is if offspring result.
Originally posted by cpurser:
3) The other article I linked to gives specific examples of how homosexuality is social, not genetic. Yes, the title may turn a you away, but the arguments in the article are real.
The source of homosexuality is not what I care about, i care about the rights of ALL AMERICANS, including homosexuals.
Originally posted by cpurser:
4) In your article, it lists specific instances of same sex marriages. I'm sorry, but it is not a "sanctified" or "Christian" marriage if it is same-sex. I don't care what the anthropologist says. The second example is hardly a good one, either. Are the Romans around today? I didn't think so. Why aren't they? They became obsessed with overindulgence.
I don't give a rat's bunghole about whether or not a marriage is "sanctified". That is an issue that needs to be resolved between the intended couple and the flavor, I mean religion of thier choice. The Romans sold out the defense of their country to mercenaries. Where is the solid NON BIASED evidence that sucking a little cock led to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire? Hey, didn't the Gauls/Goths/other "barbarians" have something to do with it?
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099 |
BEWARE!!!!! The Locusts are coming this year!!!!!!!!!!!!
2003 Sonic Blue SVT Cobra Coupe
2003 RedFire SVT Cobra Convertable
2005 Dark Toreador Red F150 XLT 4x4
2000 Black SVT Contour - Beater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by JaTo:
The author is twisting word usage to the breaking point here and pulling one HELL of a bait and switch. I HAVE taken Anthropology courses back in college and studied the Greek and Roman empires quite a bit (the Roman empire well enough to have a department head check his notes on a particular topic during an argument).
There is NO common and widespread connection or evidence that exists that shows a long-standing social/religious ceremony that strictly bonds a same-sex couple together to the exclusion of all others.
True, the practice of homosexuality was widespread among Roman and Greek elites and there were certain rituals developed around the practice, though I've yet to see ANY documentation or research that points to a WIDESPREAD and COMMON ceremony that was both held sarcosanct by the MAJORITY of the religious and secular populations in any meaningfully developed civilization that has lived on this planet.
Key word being MAJORITY.
Grabbing a few examples out of the past doesn't change the common definition of marriage that has lasted and survived millenia of social and religious change throughout any number of civilizations. That is a cold, hard FACT. Pagan AND Christian values/norms as well as human nature itself has defined marriage throughout the ages. Also pointing to Roman emperors condoning the practice should IMMEDIATELY set alarm bells off, as some of the beliefs and practices of the emperors and thier decrees were often the polar opposite of commonly-held social and religious norms held at the time.
I'm smelling a large load of BS with that article.
Don't get me wrong; I have absolutely no issue with gays and wish that the US would come to grips with this and offer civil unions as the solution. Marriage throughout all common religions of today (pick your poison: Christianity, Islam, Shintoism, Bhuddism, etc., etc.) and most societies involve (1) man and (1) woman, though.
I think civil unions should have an elevated status that equates marriage and all of the benefits thereof, reflecting a joining of same-sex couples; marriage should reflect man and wife, as it has done throughout the ages in 99.999% of the time.
It is splitting hairs to an extent (as a concept and defition of that concept is being argued here), but for the same reason most societies split hairs over other long-held religious and social practices.
Wasn't there a Roman legion that consisted entirely of male couples? And are you currently an anthropoligist? Have you made it your lifestime study to understand the daily lives of civilizations and cultures all over the world? I am sure that the author of the article and the anthropologists that are disagreeing with the President's assertion that marriage is only to be between male and female used the Greeks and Romans as examples (even though the examples might be weak) becuase the average American has heard of the Greeks and Romans by watching Gladiator and The Clash of the Titans.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 36
New CEG\'er
|
|
New CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 36 |
FAGGOTS!!!!!!!!
MAKE ME SICK!!!!!
how can a guy want to stick another guy in his assss????? you sick fuucckks!!!
how could you even condone it unless your a faggot wanting to come out of the closet.
faggot loving bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,489 |
Originally posted by Shane27:
FAGGOTS!!!!!!!!
MAKE ME SICK!!!!!
how can a guy want to stick another guy in his assss????? you sick fuucckks!!!
how could you even condone it unless your a faggot wanting to come out of the closet.
faggot loving bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 wow, real mature. what are we in, 6th grade?
1998 T-Red CSVT 3.0L
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099 |
Originally posted by Shane27:
FAGGOTS!!!!!!!!
MAKE ME SICK!!!!!
how can a guy want to stick another guy in his assss????? you sick fuucckks!!!
how could you even condone it unless your a faggot wanting to come out of the closet.
faggot loving bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.
--Matt
2003 Sonic Blue SVT Cobra Coupe
2003 RedFire SVT Cobra Convertable
2005 Dark Toreador Red F150 XLT 4x4
2000 Black SVT Contour - Beater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,220 |
Quote:
Uhmm, the Xq28 is the study that my article was disputing. INVALID STUDY!
First of all, there are many studies that reach the common conclusion of the Xq28 chromosome having some bearing on male homosexuality. This is not just a single study.
Secondly, the research done by hundreds of psychiatrists and behavioral geneticists is not made moot because a couple of theologians disagree with them.
2003 Mazda6s 3.0L MTX
Webpage
2004 Mazda3s 2.3L ATX
|
|
|
|
|
