Abortion

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage is what it is. I have no objection to civil unions that carry the legal benefits and responsibilites of marriage, but two people of the same sex can not marry any more than a garbage truck can fly under its own power.

You need to keep up with the rest of the world, Pale, gays can marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, S. Africa, Norway, and Sweden. In the US they can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Many places and many cultures have recognized gay marriages down through history. Shoot, even the Catholic church has a ceremony for it and has historically married gays.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

To whom it may concern:
Dr. Who is presenting my decision to refuse discussion with him as a common technique that I use. The truth is that in all the years of posting there are only two people whom I have had to exclude from my discussions, Dr. Who and Lakeman, both of whom may be the same person on different sites in light of their actions.

 

[palerider]

You need to keep up with the rest of the world, Pale, gays can marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, S. Africa, Norway, and Sweden. In the US they can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

No they can't. Marriage is a union between men and women. You can look up in the sky and see the things flying about and call them garbage trucks and maybe even convince some weak minds that they are garbage trucks, but nothing on earth can actually make them garbage trucks. Calling a thing a marriage, even if you can convince a court, doesn't make it so.

Many places and many cultures have recognized gay marriages down through history. Shoot, even the Catholic church has a ceremony for it and has historically married gays.

Actually, many places and many cultures have recognized homosexual relationships. None have called those relationships marriages. I believe I asked you before to provide some corroboration to support that claim and you found that you could not.

 

[Pidgey]

But by law one must engage in the sexual act to consummate the marriage; it is the sociological likelihood of procreation that the state is interested in.

Probably right... the state isn't at all concerned about your pursuit of happiness--they only care that you're going to create more offspring to fund future tax revenues. The REAL reason for state-provided marriage perks!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No they can't. Marriage is a union between men and women. You can look up in the sky and see the things flying about and call them garbage trucks and maybe even convince some weak minds that they are garbage trucks, but nothing on earth can actually make them garbage trucks. Calling a thing a marriage, even if you can convince a court, doesn't make it so.

Marriage is just a term, it has meant many things to many people, your definition is hardly the be all and end all of word usage.

Actually, many places and many cultures have recognized homosexual relationships. None have called those relationships marriages. I believe I asked you before to provide some corroboration to support that claim and you found that you could not.

Quite opposite actually, I have listed a number of cultures that historically have used the word marriage to apply to gays.

Even the Catholic church had a ceremony called the "marriage of likeness". One of the other posters tried to discredit that reference but his citations stated that the ceremony existed, but were ambiguous about the meaning of it. They did however, admit that evidence suggests that it was a real marriage sanctioned by the church. Some of the saints were homosexuals and were married by the church.

In other cultures: Japanese in early modern times, Chinese under the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native American tribes before white domination, many African tribes well into the 20th century, portions of the Middle East, South-East Asia, Russia and other parts of Asia, and in South America. (I have sources for these references but won't bother to type them out again since no one will actually read any of the books anyway. I will supply them to anyone who pm's me and really wants them.)

I continue to marvel at the intransigence exhibited by some. It's like you are going to be personally held responsible and punished by God if gay people are given legal equality. The bullheaded stance that words never change in meaning tickles me too, just what do you call the little device that moves your cursor around on the screen? It can't be a "mouse", can it? Words have many meanings and you don't speak for God so you're definition is no better than anyone elses.

 

[palerider]

Marriage is just a term, it has meant many things to many people, your definition is hardly the be all and end all of word usage.

You may be surprised to learn that words have meanings and as is the case with many words like marriage, that meaning has been established over thousands of years. You can call an arrangement between two people of the same sex a marriage if you like, but it doesn't make it so any more than calling a garbage truck an airplane makes the garbage truck an airplane

Quite opposite actually, I have listed a number of cultures that historically have used the word marriage to apply to gays.

Sorry, not the opposite. Do feel free to provide some credible proof to support your claim if you like.

Even the Catholic church had a ceremony called the "marriage of likeness".

Sorry, didn't happen. Your term "marriage of likeness" is a modern term coined by a man named James Boswell in his book titled The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. Boswell himself states clearly that the actual term given to these unions "adelphopoiesis". literally translated as "brother making" could rightly be translated as a homosexual marriage. As I said, homosexual relationships have been recognized, but none have been called marriages. If they were marriages, then they would have been called marriages as the term existed at that time rather than being called something else. Grasping on to the acknowledgement of relationships and trying to construe that as marriage is a poor excuse for proof mare.

In other cultures: Japanese in early modern times, Chinese under the Yuan and Ming dynasties, Native American tribes before white domination, many African tribes well into the 20th century, portions of the Middle East, South-East Asia, Russia and other parts of Asia, and in South America. (I have sources for these references but won't bother to type them out again since no one will actually read any of the books anyway. I will supply them to anyone who pm's me and really wants them.)

Sorry again mare, didn't happen. In all those cultures, the term used in acknowledgement of those relationships was not the same as the term used between men and women. Feel free to provide a bibliographical reference if you like and I will be happy to drop by a library and check the books out and prove you wrong.

As I have said before, the relationships were recognized, but were not called marriages.

I continue to marvel at the intransigence exhibited by some. It's like you are going to be personally held responsible and punished by God if gay people are given legal equality.

As I have said, I don't oppose civil unions between homosexuals that carry the benefits and responsibilities, and problems with marriage, but actually redefining the term to include homosexuals simply because they want to be seen as legitimately married is simply going to far for us and it was seen as going to far in the cases of all the cultures you mentioned as none of them called such unions marriages.

The bullheaded stance that words never change in meaning tickles me too, just what do you call the little device that moves your cursor around on the screen? It can't be a "mouse", can it? Words have many meanings and you don't speak for God so you're definition is no better than anyone elses.

Show me an example of another culture calling a union between homosexuals a marriage. You simply want to be viewed as normal when the fact is that homosexual is a tragic genetic aberation. Why not simply accept that you do not represent the norm and accept a term that acknowledges your relationship but does not seek to pretend that you fit squarely into the norm?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Here you go, Pale, places where gays are allowed "marriage" and it is called "marriage":

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
You need to keep up with the rest of the world, Pale, gays can marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, S. Africa, Norway, and Sweden. In the US they can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

 

[Dr.Who]

Sorry, didn't happen. Your term "marriage of likeness" is a modern term coined by a man named James Boswell in his book titled The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. Boswell himself states clearly that the actual term given to these unions "adelphopoiesis". literally translated as "brother making" could rightly be translated as a homosexual marriage. As I said, homosexual relationships have been recognized, but none have been called marriages. If they were marriages, then they would have been called marriages as the term existed at that time rather than being called something else. Grasping on to the acknowledgement of relationships and trying to construe that as marriage is a poor excuse for proof mare.


Show me an example of another culture calling a union between homosexuals a marriage. You simply want to be viewed as normal when the fact is that homosexual is a tragic genetic aberation. Why not simply accept that you do not represent the norm and accept a term that acknowledges your relationship but does not seek to pretend that you fit squarely into the norm?

I think you meant historically in another culture.

Normal is a statistical term, so yes homosexuality is not normal. But that does not mean bad. Sacrificial love (as in the two greatest commandments) is not normal either but it is good.

We do not know if homosexuality is genetic, environmental, or as is more likely a combination. So it would be premature to call it a genetic aberration.

Now it might be bad and it might be an aberration but based on genetics and statistics we can't say that.

 

[palerider]

Here you go, Pale, places where gays are allowed "marriage" and it is called "marriage":

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity
You need to keep up with the rest of the world, Pale, gays can marry in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, S. Africa, Norway, and Sweden. In the US they can marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Bastions of modern liberalism. Of course. I note that you can not substantiate your claim that past cultures have named the arrangements between members of the same sex marriage.

 

[palerider]

We do not know if homosexuality is genetic, environmental, or as is more likely a combination. So it would be premature to call it a genetic aberration.

The fact that it occurs in animals strongly suggests that true homosexuality is a genetic abberation. There are those who live the homosexual lifestyle who are not true homosexuals and they, of course, would not fall into the genetic category.

Now it might be bad and it might be an aberration but based on genetics and statistics we can't say that.

I made no statements of good or bad and the non PC facts strongly suggest a genetic origin for true homosexuality.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Bastions of modern liberalism. Of course. I note that you can not substantiate your claim that past cultures have named the arrangements between members of the same sex marriage.

They are foreign countries and they have different languages, so the word would not be "marriage". I could see this one coming from you a long ways off, Pale. At least you're consistent, you've been advocating a proud march back into the Dark Ages since I started reading your posts.

I bet if you had the courage of your convictions that you'd be advocating the resubjugation of women and the reinstatement of slavery since you show not the slightest egalitarian leanings. Unlike many people on these threads who flap around philosophically like laundry on the line, you are more like a rock--hard, rigid, solid, difficult to move, and not the least bit progressive in any definition of the word.

I like you okay though and I even agree with you on one or two fundamental points... I bet you hate that!

 

[palerider]

They are foreign countries and they have different languages, so the word would not be "marriage". I could see this one coming from you a long ways off, Pale. At least you're consistent, you've been advocating a proud march back into the Dark Ages since I started reading your posts.

the point is that they are modern liberal cultures. Whatever word they use for marriage has never, in thier past been used to describe an arrangement between members of the opposite sex. The fact that they presently call it a marriage does not make it so any more than calling a garbage truck an airplane can make it fly.

I bet if you had the courage of your convictions that you'd be advocating the resubjugation of women and the reinstatement of slavery since you show not the slightest egalitarian leanings.

Typical. Lose your argument and immediately go into fits of hystrionics making all sorts of baseless claims to divert attention away from the fact that you couldn't substantiate your claims.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

the point is that they are modern liberal cultures. Whatever word they use for marriage has never, in thier past been used to describe an arrangement between members of the opposite sex. The fact that they presently call it a marriage does not make it so any more than calling a garbage truck an airplane can make it fly.

Typical. Lose your argument and immediately go into fits of hystrionics making all sorts of baseless claims to divert attention away from the fact that you couldn't substantiate your claims.

Horsepuckey, Pale, I was using other things to make a point about your retro attitude.

Saying that these are modern liberal cultures is irrelevant, liberal cultures and cultures that were simply less hidebound and narrow-minded have accepted gay and transpeople without demur. For some weird reason you feel like you and the people who share your viewpoint are somehow more correct or something. You represent a portion of the human race today, that's all, you don't speak for all people in all times. You wish to perpetuate your viewpoint at the expense of others, that's a real common attitude and a real common failing in people.

Everybody wants to be special, better than others, and in this debate you want to be better and more priviledged than some people that you don't like or approve of, we understand that. Speaking just for myself, I'm sorry for you because your desire makes you take a bigoted stand that hurts others for no good purpose. Marriage equality does nothing to harm the institution of marriage, all it does is slightly prick the egos of people who have had special rights for many years.

The definitions of words change with time, there were times and places where only males were considered citizens, or only white males, or only landowners. The vote has been restricted similarly, landownership as well. The whole history of humans has been a long struggle to bring equality to more and more people. You and your ilk are a minor roadblock to this process and you will die of old age just like the racists and be replaced with newer, more generously-spirited people--I know, when we speak at University and high school classes we meet these young people and they can't fathom your attitude.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The fact that it occurs in animals strongly suggests that true homosexuality is a genetic abberation.

It might also be something that has survival value and hasn't been winnowed out by evolution because of that. There are many examples of this in BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by Bruce Bagemihl. It is so widespread in the higher animals that an "aberration" seems like an unfit term. In some kinds of mountain goats most of the males engage in homosexual acts, just a few mount the ewes during mating season and then even they go back to the male group and engage in homosexual acts.

Your insistence on placing some kind of judgment on the value of sexual activity that even YOU admit you don't know the genesis of says volumes about your attitude.

 

[palerider]

It might also be something that has survival value and hasn't been winnowed out by evolution because of that. There are many examples of this in BIOLOGICAL EXUBERANCE by Bruce Bagemihl. It is so widespread in the higher animals that an "aberration" seems like an unfit term. In some kinds of mountain goats most of the males engage in homosexual acts, just a few mount the ewes during mating season and then even they go back to the male group and engage in homosexual acts.

Your insistence on placing some kind of judgment on the value of sexual activity that even YOU admit you don't know the genesis of says volumes about your attitude.

Your goats are expressing bisexual behavior and I never suggested that bisexuality was genetic. True homosexuality must be a genetic abberation because a norm such as true homosexuality would render the species extinct in exactly one generation.