California Proposition 8

[Dawkinsrocks]

The voice of reason.

I was tempted to make you sound like bigoted lunatic but you beat me to it

 

[Segep]

gross!

if i want your opinion I'll rattle your cage, troll

 

[Segep]

Yes, they do.

But this one hasn't.

Marriage remains "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE."

It takes centuries of privilege for definitive evolution to occur ..., which, obviously, hasn't happened yet here.

You are misinformed. Marriage has been constantly changing since human beings first learned to use fire.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html


If you don't believe internet sources, you could always pick up a book or two.

http://books.google.com/books?q=his..._group&resnum=11&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results

Seems strange, doesn't it, that there would be over 154,000 books about the history of marriage if marriage has never changed?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

gross!

To the pure of heart all things are pure, but you, my friend, could smell dung in an alabaster jar of perfume.

What do you think is going to happen on the 2nd? Wild sex? Drunken revelry? Gluttony? C'mon, fj, you went so far as to post a "gross" statement, what is your biggest fear? Or maybe you biggest turn-on? Are you living vicariously through fantasies of the lives of others?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You are misinformed. Marriage has been constantly changing since human beings first learned to use fire.

http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20050506-000006.html

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html


If you don't believe internet sources, you could always pick up a book or two.

http://books.google.com/books?q=his..._group&resnum=11&ct=title&cad=bottom-3results

Seems strange, doesn't it, that there would be over 154,000 books about the history of marriage if marriage has never changed?

No, no, that's 154,000 books proving that it has NEVER changed! We all get to have concubines and have to marry our brother's wife if he gets killed.

 

[top gun]

OK.

But you're saying that only two people can enter into a marriage. Why only two? If more than two are "in love" why can't they bond in marriage?

I await your answer.

From a purely legal perspective because of issues with children and property rights.

 

[Pandora]

No, no, that's 154,000 books proving that it has NEVER changed! We all get to have concubines and have to marry our brother's wife if he gets killed.

You dont "have to" marry your brothers wife if he dies, you are first in line to do it but you can pass it on to the next in line and so on and so on.

See: Ruth and Boaz

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You dont "have to" marry your brothers wife if he dies, you are first in line to do it but you can pass it on to the next in line and so on and so on.

See: Ruth and Boaz

Fair enough, but do you suppose there was social pressure to "do the right thing"? The point was that marriage has changed vastly around the world down through history--including gay marriages.

 

[Sihouette]

Top gun, your argument is interesting. However, mere custody issues won't stand in the way of already religiously bonded bigamists from seeking legal legitmacy.

So why not bigamy? For it surely will follow on the heels of gay's rights to marry.. Bigamists have been pushing for some time to have legal marriage status.

I can see a BIG rewrite of family law code at this point...once the snowball starts rolling..

 

[Pandora]

Fair enough, but do you suppose there was social pressure to "do the right thing"? The point was that marriage has changed vastly around the world down through history--including gay marriages.

Yes I would say it’s changed a whole lot. It used to be a covenant between a man a woman and God. God is left out more often than not anymore and it’s not taken very seriously in general.

 

[Segep]

Yes I would say it’s changed a whole lot. It used to be a covenant between a man a woman and God. God is left out more often than not anymore and it’s not taken very seriously in general.

I take it seriously

 

[Pandora]

I take it seriously

I do too now, but I did not back when I was married. I actually lied to the pastor and said I didnt live with my now ex husband before we got married.

I take marriage serious enough now that I dont think I would ever do it again and you can bet your last buck I would never get "government" married again. Now that I have thought out what government approved marriage is, I would never have the stinking government validate my relationship.


I am glad its something you take seriously, I wish everyone did

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I do too now, but I did not back when I was married. I actually lied to the pastor and said I didnt live with my now ex husband before we got married.

I take marriage serious enough now that I dont think I would ever do it again and you can bet your last buck I would never get "government" married again. Now that I have thought out what government approved marriage is, I would never have the stinking government validate my relationship.
I am glad its something you take seriously, I wish everyone did

I also take my marriage seriously, it took us nearly half a century to find each other. Now, because of my accepting the American Medical Association approved treatment for my birth defect, my marriage is at risk from religious people who don't know anything about the science involved.

 

[Chip]

It's too bad that you didn't see fit to apply your "definitive propriety" proces to the US Constitution, the highes law in the land, because you would find that your basic premise is flawed.

Untrue.

My premise, the accurate foundational definition of marriage participants, remains sound.

At one time your widely accepted, culturally diverse, definition of longstanding, "definitive propriety" said that blacks weren't fully human too, but things change despite the best efforts of the dinosaurs. May they rest in peace.

Untrue.

The long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage always was and presently is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Never did that definition say "except for blacks because they aren't fully human".

The errors of some on the right are just as wrong as the errors of some on the left; inappropriate exclusion that violates definitive propriety is just as erroneous as inappropriate inclusion that violates definitive propriety.

No violation of definitive propriety is ever rationally considered a revision of foundational definition.

Even if some localities thought they could exclude blacks from marriage, that does not mean that was in any way an alteration of definition but merely a definitively inappropriate aberration ... and likewise, just because some localities think they can include gays/lesbians in marriage, does not mean in any way shape or form that the definition of marriage is altered, but that they are proposing a definitively inappropriate aberration.

The LCD -- the lowest common denominator -- of the definition of marriage from time immemorial is "between a MAN and A WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

That is the definition of marriage participants, and no local bias, either left or right, has the power to change the reality of it.

I have posted numerous examples of marriage being defined broadly enough in historical times to include same sex coupling.

No you haven't.

What you have posted is your allusion to anecdotal violations of the foundational LCD definition of marriage.

You catagorically denied these examples, saying that they represented a fringe of society and not the mainstream.

Wrong.

I have accurately denied that your examples reflect the foundational LCD definition of marriage that has never changed from time immemorial.

You didn't support your assertion however so it cannot be accepted as anything but your opinion.

Everything posted by every poster is their opinion.

What's important is that mine rings true.

Yours, doesn't ... no matter how many erroneous out-of-context appeals to "A"uthority you make.

Read the American Nazi Party website or the Klan website and you will find that they diverge widely from you on the meanings of many words.

Irrelevant.

The mistakes of you and others are meaningless.

If you really want to take an opinion poll, the correct sampling populous is all (or as many as possible) children of the age of six previously un-coached by "others" with specific regard to the poll. There you will find the overwhelming vast majority reflecting the essence of the time-honored, long-standing, cross-cultural, traditional definition of marriage participants at its lowest common denominator accuracy, untarnished by adult pre-conceived ideological bias ... and you will understandably find that definition to be "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Yours is an argument for the status quo because it works for you and your fear/hatred (carefully concealed behind a cloud of rhetoric) is thereby assuaged by denying to others the rights you enjoy for yourself. Very "practice of Christianity" in today's world.

You can factlessly, erroneouslly ad hominem me all you like, Mare, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Your projection, transference and displacement, Mare, are obvious here.

Your posts in the genesis of homosexuality thread and in this thread present you as being someone who is extremely skewed against the "status quo" because of your previous trans-gender biological conflict between your physiology and your neuropsychology.

You have been bent into defense, defense, defense against "status quo" attacks, as you have stated, to the degree where you appear to have become every underdog's champion in this genre.

Thus everyone who disagrees in the "status quo" you deem paranoid and fearful and Christian and on and on.

You appear blinded by your own "stuff" to the foundational definitive propriety of the arguments of others with whom you disagree.

Thus, unable to see the justified rational common sense of their argument, you jump to irrational conclusions about their motives ... and so you attack them personally, perhaps expecting none of them to see the truth of where you're coming from.

You have substantiated clearly why your perspective is so biasedly filtered, and why your opinion with respect to the truth is not to be trusted.

Indeed, that's some ego you've grown there, Mare ... though I can most certainly understand why it is what it is, and I hold nothing against you with regard to your unprovoked alluded ad hominems of me.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

So the defintion of marriage is wrong and needs updating for the modern world.

You make an argument for change and a great argument for making sure that political decisions must be removed from bigoted hands like yours.

BTW are you gay?

The idea that marriage is sacred is ridiculous.

First of all the idea is rooted in religion which is ridiculous and secondly you only have to look at the number of people who divorce and remarry making the same stupid promises again and again.

I don't hear people speaking out against people who stand up in church promising to someone who doesn't exist to do things that they then fail to do and then repeat the process.

I mean, how fukcing stupid is that?