The thread you've been waiting for.

[Liar]

Even non-religious societies, such as the Romans

Um...

...what?

 

[kbate]

I, too, was concerned about the redefinition of marriage, many years ago. But, as I said in Another Thread, definitions are the property of people and society, not dictionaries. Meanings reflect, rather than decide, cultural direction. And God knows it is not my place to utter inane etymologies at those who have long been denied equal rights.

I read an interesting piece in Christian Today magazine (not my usual read of choice, I must confess, but I was reading about No Man's Sky and saw the link) - not, one would have thought, a screamingly liberal magazine. I thought it thought provoking. The whole piece is here, but this extract seems particularly apposite:

but, but "Marriage"!!!! < many exclamations.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! (only one exclamation as this idiotic line was actually spoken at our dinner party last night)

 

[Palamino19]

You're an idiot. Looking for the exception to prove the rule.

And where are those societies now sparky? Hmmm?

Been through all that shit with Rhys, stymied him on tha6 and you aren't the equal

Kids, they pull anything out their ass to avoid the subject.

Ishmael

Don't know who Rhys is, don't care. You apparently think past experiences on a forum equate to real world victories.

Marriage has not been a uniform system, ever. It has changed constantly.

Most of human history in many empires, including those in the West, it was a property exchange. Love was an optional aspect.

As for children, whether or not it had children to define it as such was almost always dependent on the choice of the male to stay or leave, though in some societies, they could not easily divorce, and would take a second wife or more.

The definition has changed, you don't want to argue it because of an imaginary epic debate on an erotica site. Deal with it.

 

[zipman]

*chuckle*

My opinion of the SCOTUS decision re. Gay Marriage.

It sucks, it's a bad decision. If you thought Roe v. Wade was divisive, you haven't seen anything yet.

First some background. Personally I could care less who you hang with or who you choose to make a legal binding with, that's your business. The issue is the word 'Marriage.' And that's what it's always been about. My debates on the subject with Rys (a militant gay) go way back and are still a matter of record here on Lit. He insisted that nothing less that calling the union a 'Marriage' would do, I disagreed then and do so this day.

Starting with what a 'Marriage License' really is. It's nothing more than a paid for permit for civil union. To execute that permit you don't need a preacher, or a church, just a notary public to affirm that the act of commitment was witnessed. Anyone can perform the ceremony, anywhere any time. So why not be honest with yourself and shit can the notion that forming a bond is some sacred sacrament barred from others based on religious prejudice....it's not and thinking so is a joke.

Words mean things.

Marriage is something that has been around for a several millennia. It's based on the concept of a man and a woman forming a life partnership. Even non-religious societies, such as the Romans, understood the meaning of the word. Apparently our SCOTUS doesn't, or thinks it can re-define it.

The 'Marriage License" you buy at the court house is the crux of the matter. I should have never been called a 'Marriage License', rather a civil union license or the such. Which brings us to the fact that if a government has the power to license any activity of any sort, then it has the power to determine under what conditions that license shall be issued. The court has effectively stripped away that authority from the states. What's next, drivers licenses?

Further the court has set itself up for innumerable conflicts. Anyone remember Burwell v Hobby Lobby? Well, that ruling set the stage for anyone of religious foundation to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on whatever their Gospel may be. Essentially stripping the states of enforcement of equal rights based on sexual preferences, Expect to see more of this in the future. I see a class action "Bakery Shop" suit in the future. I can only guess how the court is going to resolve the corner it's painted itself into.

I DO understand the desire for gay couples to enjoy the legal benefits that are currently in place for hetero unions without the need to employ a staff of lawyers. But could this have been accomplished without the re-definition of a word with such a history?

Words mean things.

As soon as you re-define a word then it is open for even further re-definition. And law suits will precipitate from that simple fact. As a matter of fact they already are. There is a suit winding its way through the courts regarding polygamy. If you read the plaintiff's logic it is essentially the same as the case recently adjudicated. And quite frankly that logic can be applied to virtually any combination of relationships regardless of gender, familial, or number of participants relationships.

No good deed is without unintended consequences.

The court should have said, "No." and along with that rendering have opined as to how the various states might cure the legal loop-hole, Like calling the paper you pay for a "Civil Union Permit", which is what it is, instead of a damn "Marriage License!"

Like dropping pebbles in a pond, it takes a while for the ripples to reach the farthest bank.

Ishmael

LOL at "words have meanings." Everyone knows that the meaning of words and terms evolve over time. Language isn't set in stone which makes this argument one of your worst.

The opposition to Gay marriage is about exclusivity and hypocrisy. I don't see Christians lobbying to be able to stone adulterers or divorcees to death.

 

[Palamino19]

The opposition to Gay marriage is about exclusivity and hypocrisy. I don't see Christians lobbying to be able to stone adulterers or divorcees to death.

That's for the 2020 election cycle.

 

[Ramone45]

Here's one way all this gay stuff affects me. On the IMDB Message Board for "Inside Out", someone is asking if Riley is transgendered. Ironically, Lewis Black plays "Anger" in the movie, and that's how I feel. For the time being, this debate is grotesquely out of proportion. All your various queers make up maybe 3% of the population. Transgenders are a minute fraction of that. To project transgenderism into a person or a character is looking for the longest of long shots. Why that would evem enter a person's consciousness is beyond me. The reason i don't care about gay marriage and all the extraneous stuff is because it is statistically insignificant and it is not going to grow. But because we are talking about it so much, people are seeing things where there is nothing to be seen.

 

[BabblingBrooke]

Here's one way all this gay stuff affects me. On the IMDB Message Board for "Inside Out", someone is asking if Riley is transgendered. Ironically, Lewis Black plays "Anger" in the movie, and that's how I feel. For the time being, this debate is grotesquely out of proportion. All your various queers make up maybe 3% of the population. Transgenders are a minute fraction of that. To project transgenderism into a person or a character is looking for the longest of long shots. Why that would evem enter a person's consciousness is beyond me. The reason i don't care about gay marriage and all the extraneous stuff is because it is statistically insignificant and it is not going to grow. But because we are talking about it so much, people are seeing things where there is nothing to be seen.

Other people seeing stuff where "there is nothing to be seen" affects you how? Lots of controversial things are posted on Internet boards. Do they all affect you?

 

[Ramone45]

Other people seeing stuff where "there is nothing to be seen" affects you how? Lots of controversial things are posted on Internet boards. Do they all affect you?

I'm worried they might think I'm a gay or tranny.LOL
Seriously, the issue is occupying too much of our consciousness, time and energy when we have more important things to worry about.

 

[Ishmael]

I, too, was concerned about the redefinition of marriage, many years ago. But, as I said in Another Thread, definitions are the property of people and society, not dictionaries. Meanings reflect, rather than decide, cultural direction. And God knows it is not my place to utter inane etymologies at those who have long been denied equal rights.

I read an interesting piece in Christian Today magazine (not my usual read of choice, I must confess, but I was reading about No Man's Sky and saw the link) - not, one would have thought, a screamingly liberal magazine. I thought it thought provoking. The whole piece is here, but this extract seems particularly apposite:

but, but "Marriage"!!!! < many exclamations.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! (only one exclamation as this idiotic line was actually spoken at our dinner party last night)

Or the courts. I have no idea what your press is spinning over there but each and every time the people of the various states have been given a choice via the ballot box, same sex "marriage" has been rejected. So much for the people having a say, huh?

And here we go with Kbate whipping out her bible, for what purpose dear? Self-flagellation? Or did you become so incensed at my opinion that your brain switched off and "Adam and Steve" is the best you could come up with?

Ishmael

 

[JohnnySavage]

Or the courts. I have no idea what your press is spinning over there but each and every time the people of the various states have been given a choice via the ballot box, same sex "marriage" has been rejected. So much for the people having a say, huh?

And here we go with Kbate whipping out her bible, for what purpose dear? Self-flagellation? Or did you become so incensed at my opinion that your brain switched off and "Adam and Steve" is the best you could come up with?

Ishmael

Question 6 (colloquially called the Maryland same-sex marriage referendum) is a referendum that appeared on the general election ballot for the U.S. state of Maryland to allow voters to approve or reject the Civil Marriage Protection Act—a bill legalizing same-sex marriage passed by the General Assembly in 2012. The referendum was approved by 52.4% of voters on November 6, 2012 and thereafter went into effect on January 1, 2013.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Referendum 74 (R-74 or Ref 74) was a Washington state referendum to approve or reject the February 2012 bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state.[1] On June 12, 2012, state officials announced that enough signatures in favor of the referendum had been submitted and scheduled the referendum to appear on the ballot in the November 6 general election.[2] The law was upheld by voters in the November 6, 2012 election by a final margin of 7.4% (53.7% approve, 46.3% reject) and the result was certified on December 5.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred November 6, 2012. The title of the citizen initiative is "An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom". The question that appeared on the ballot was: "Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

The law took effect on December 29, 2012

 

[evesdream]

Oh, I'm used to folks like you pointing fingers and calling names without thinking. It's the sign of crippled mind.

Ishmael

There might have been a time when I would have entertained your meanderings, including this strange response, if only to try to see why anybody else bothers. Astonishingly, you've become increasingly and devastatingly more incoherent and irrelevant - and, frankly, a troll by any other name would be you, Ishmael.

Have fun with those willing to take the time to meditate on the obvious with you, you foolish old man.

 

[kbate]

Or the courts. I have no idea what your press is spinning over there but each and every time the people of the various states have been given a choice via the ballot box, same sex "marriage" has been rejected. So much for the people having a say, huh?

And here we go with Kbate whipping out her bible, for what purpose dear? Self-flagellation? Or did you become so incensed at my opinion that your brain switched off and "Adam and Steve" is the best you could come up with?
Ishmael

No, you are not intelligent enough to become incensed about, and if you think I posted anything serious, you are even less intelligent that I suspect. You would have to be worthy of argument before I would engage in one with you.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

*chuckle*

I'm white, male, old, conservative, scared of change that empowers others and betters their lives while not benefitting me directly and am basically contrarian to everything that isn't centric to myself and white, male, conservative interests! As an added plus, I also hate women smarter than me and I vent this through my sexual frustrations!

Ishmael

Wow, this TruthFilter© app is amazing! Cuts all the bullshit out and gets right down to the nitty-gritty!

 

[BotanyBoy]

I
The State has no business issuing a license for this. They have no business treating people differently tax-wise depending on whether their live-in is this year or allegedly till death do us part. THAT is the crux of the problem.

There are a lot of legal implications/dealings with that the state does have a say so in....and gay people should be entitled to those same legal protections. The fact that there has to be laws and courts to sort these disputes out is not the problem.

The fact that the RW is pissed off because the law has to legally treat gay people the same as every other people as per the US Constitution, is the problem. RW Christians lost the religious legal privilege of getting to define marriage, they were found to be on the wrong side of the equal treatment clause of the 14th amendment of the US Constitution and they are fucking pissed about it, THAT is the problem.

You're an idiot. Looking for the exception to prove the rule.

And where are those societies now sparky? Hmmm?

Ishmael

Doesn't matter....point is marriage isn't universally defined as "one man and one woman" really anywhere at any time ever.

I proved nothing of the sort shit for brains. Obviously, any casual reading read my OP would debase you of your entire, emotionally driven, argument. But you have always nee an emotionally driven bitch.

Ishmael

Kinda like the fact that there is no such thing as a universal definition of marriage much less one that says 1m1f debases your entire, emotionally driven argument?

It is exactly because of the last line there that churches have opposed this. Given the current administration's several times before Scotus insisting it can prevent the free exercise of religion... you can see why they might worry.

Really....when did that happen? Over what?

 

[Sean]

Um...

...what?

Yeah, that bit made me blink too.

And hands up all those that were "waiting for" Ishtard to make a thread about marriage equality?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Um...

...what?

Yeah, that bit made me blink too.

And hands up all those that were "waiting for" Ishtard to make a thread about marriage equality?

I got a pretty big laugh out of that. Rome was a non-religious society..

This, ladies and gents, is why you should leave distillation to professionals. There's a reason why it's illegal even for your own consumption.

 

[Ishmael]

Maine Question 1 was a voter referendum on an initiated state statute that occurred November 6, 2012. The title of the citizen initiative is "An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom". The question that appeared on the ballot was: "Do you want to allow the State of Maine to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?"

The law took effect on December 29, 2012

I had forgotten all about the great bellwether State of Maine. "As goes Maine, so goes the Nation?" Point taken.

Ishmael

 

[girlsmiley]

but, but "Marriage"!!!! < many exclamations.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! (only one exclamation as this idiotic line was actually spoken at our dinner party last night)

Marry me.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KBate is a realist.

It's all about the legal. (And the bass, *snicker*)

Ishmael

Kbate is right.

Gays will discover what I discovered after I was married for a while, the spouse owned half the property I acquired before we got married. Can you say GAY GOLD DIGGER?