Is banning same-sex marriage fair?

[JBeukema]

I'd love to make it easier for them myself. It's why I encourage them to quit wasting time by using the "word" marriage. Call it anything else and the resistance will dwindle to next to nothing.

so let the state license use a word that is non discriminatory, and let the churches practice whatever ceremony they wish to officiate the unions with. Viola! Problem solved.

Day um. I was hoping to have a fight.

No i think it should be the other way around. If the church still wants to have their little holy fingers in everyones life then THEY should call what THEY do

Sanctified by god.

Marriage is marriage. It is the union of two people.

Or more.

Oft more.

Ask an anthropologist or historian. Or anyone who's actually read the old Testament.

 

[JBeukema]

All the church does it make you right with god.


You still NEED a civil marriage license to be married regardless of any church involvement. What the church does is BLESS the union and that's all..


So who needs whom? You NEED a civil license to be married. You don't NEED the church to be married.

Tell it to the homos------fight for their legal rights with the state and leave the word marriage out of it. It's a sure bet.

Again with the ******* "homos" shit.
WTF?!

No idea what his problem is...

*coughclosetcasecough*

 

[JBeukema]

Dillo reminds me of

 

[JBeukema]

SSM activists should disagree, if they are sincere. They are demanding we make it our national business to change the definition of marriage. What is interesting is that some on the board seem ready to compromise by eliminating marriage entirely, which means they do not value it.

The definition is come to by SOME churches. What we propose is that the STATE come up with a more inclusive word, and the CHURCHES can follow their INDIVIDUAL convenience.

Why try to change the English language to get rights ?

Like saying 'men' includes women and 'citizens' includes blacks born to slaves inside the nation?

 

[JBeukema]

The OP asked about what's "fair", and I think in regards to this issue the best we can reasonably hope for is a "fair compromise". However, some people just aren't interested in anything less than complete triumph.

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

and have everyone call it marriage.

:yawn:

You must so confused when you speak to anthropologists about marriage across cultures or during different periods of time.

 

[JBeukema]

That's not true.

We want equal rights.

Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. Such a union may also be called matrimony, while the ceremony that marks its beginning is usually called a wedding.
People marry for many reasons, including one or more of the following: legal, social, emotional, economical, spiritual, and religious. These might include arranged marriages, family obligations, the legal establishment of a nuclear family unit, the legal protection of children and public declaration of commitment.[1][2]
Marriage practices are very diverse across cultures, may take many forms, and are often formalized by a wedding.[3] The act of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved. In some societies these obligations also extend to certain family members of the married persons. Almost all cultures that recognize marriage also recognize adultery as a violation of the terms of marriage.[4]
Marriage is usually recognized by the state, a religious authority, or both. It is often viewed as a contract. Civil marriage is the legal concept of marriage as a governmental institution irrespective of religious affiliation, in accordance with marriage laws of the jurisdiction. If recognized by the state, by the religion(s) to which the parties belong or by society in general, the act of marriage changes the personal and social status of the individuals who enter into it.

and have everyone call it marriage.

No,
to have the STATE call it the same thing and convey the same rights as whatever the church calls it.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JBeukema]

Anthropologists Reject “Traditional” definition of Marriage
By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
A recent article from Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink suggests that “anthropologists agree on traditional definition of marriage.” This statement is true only if they reference what anthropologists consider traditional, not the Focus on the Family opinion that marriage is solely between one man and one woman.
The article also states “There are two definitions of marriage in today’s culture – one of them has been around for centuries; the other is brand new.” Once again, this statement is true. However, Focus on the Family is confused as to which definition has been around for centuries and which is new. Anthropologists, historians and sociologists all recognize the “one man with one woman” definition of marriage to be very recent and not representative of how marriage is or has been expressed throughout the world. For example, in Marriage, a History historian Stephanie Coontz documents the changes that occurred in Western marriages over the last few centuries. Her research demonstrates that what Focus on the Family calls “traditional marriage” developed over the last 200 years, reaching its current form only in the middle of the last century.
Anthropologists often define marriage as a social, political, or economic contract between two individuals and their families – this does not imply monogamy, as a man with five wives has five separate marriage contracts. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the world’s cultures view polygamy as the preferred form of marriage. Furthermore, anthropologists document that cultures on every continent, excluding Antarctica, have accepted and recognized same-sex marriages. For examples, the Azande of Africa used the same rituals and words for same-sex marriages as they did opposite-sex marriages; three percent of all marriages among the Nandi of Kenya were between two women; same-sex marriages were common in Micronesian cultures with the married couple often adopting children and raising them with no ill effects whatsoever.
In 2004 the American Anthropological Association, the largest association of anthropologists in the United States, issued an official statement opposing the proposed federal marriage amendment, indicating:

The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
The Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association strongly opposes a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.
​

Suggesting anthropologists support Focus on the Family’s “traditional definition of marriage” is patently, unequivocally wrong.

 

[JBeukema]

Defining Marriage

 

[Madeline]

Excellent post, JB.

 

[JBeukema]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3LHyrJKPj0[/ame]

NO-FATHERS DAY: Remote Group Has No Dads, And Never Did

 

[JBeukema]

Bride kidnapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Which tradition is 'traditional' enough?

 

[JBeukema]

Ok I'll speak for myself. I want equal rights.

Define "equal".

Has that NOT already been established over and over again?

Evidently not.

I guess the FF, women, and blacks never quite explained what that word meant.


No wonder the 60's were so crazy- noone knew what the hell they wanted!

 

[JBeukema]

Define "equal".

Has that NOT already been established over and over again?

Not for me. If equal means they have the right to force a Church to marry them in-spite of the Church's beliefs, then I'm against it. If equal means they get to pay the marriage tax penalty as the rest of us do, then what the heck.....

The church shouldn't be acting as an agency of the state in the first damned place

 

[midcan5]

No, it is not fair. Everyone should love, argue, suffer, yell, keep their mouth shut, open their mouth, make up excuses, create reasons, enjoy physical intimacy, have sex both great and boring, go to bed happy, go to bed mad, be paranoid at times, have someone else drive, have someone else on top, have in-laws, have nuisance in-laws, laugh like crazy over stuff that was once not so funny, kiss, hug, have extended family to confirm you are nuts, not nuts, try to hide the fact you are admiring her boobs or his bottom, ask if you heard me, have someone interrupt you when the women/man looks too interested, tell you it's time to stop drinking, tell you are getting lazy fat or more insane, tell all you do is read sleep lie around, remind you to fix the back door, laugh at your dumb jokes, tell you you already told me that a thousand times, remind you to wash the car, remind you mother in law is coming over, tell you to be nice to her, tell you to stop talking politics, tell you to stop arguing with people, tell you your kids are just like you, tell you the kids never call, tell you we see the kids too much - I think I could go on and on but I'll stop here.

( and I know gays with kids )

 

[Againsheila]

so let the state license use a word that is non discriminatory, and let the churches practice whatever ceremony they wish to officiate the unions with. Viola! Problem solved.

Day um. I was hoping to have a fight.

No i think it should be the other way around. If the church still wants to have their little holy fingers in everyones life then THEY should call what THEY do

Sanctified by god.

Marriage is marriage. It is the union of two people.

Or more.

Oft more.

Ask an anthropologist or historian. Or anyone who's actually read the old Testament.

As I recall, in the Bible, having more than one wive, always led to problems. That's why we have Muslims today.

Of course, is we want to allow more than one husband....hmmmm might be fun

 

[Againsheila]

Has that NOT already been established over and over again?

Not for me. If equal means they have the right to force a Church to marry them in-spite of the Church's beliefs, then I'm against it. If equal means they get to pay the marriage tax penalty as the rest of us do, then what the heck.....

The church shouldn't be acting as an agency of the state in the first damned place

I'm not sure, but I believe marriages were originally only through the church. The state got into it so they could tax it.

 

[Madeline]

I doubt that was the case in the US, Againshelia. In any event, no church, temple or mosque will be forced to perform weddings for couples they disapprove of, regardless.

 

[Againsheila]

I doubt that was the case in the US, Againshelia. In any event, no church, temple or mosque will be forced to perform weddings for couples they disapprove of, regardless.

Nope, this was long before the US existed. I have an ancestor that we can't prove because he never really got married. See, in England it cost a lot of money to get married and he didn't approve of paying the government for such things. So he just lived with his wife, I believe they had 14 kids in the end. He came here before the revolutionary war and as the story goes, he fought for us and his older brother got killed fighting for England. He was the 2nd son of an Earl, back then, in England, the first son got everything. Which made me wonder what happened to everything in England. Then I found out there was a 3rd son. He inherited everything. We've tried to contact them and invite them to our family reunions but they want nothing to do with us. Me, if I ever go to England I'm gonna visit them. See, they have a law there that if you inherit priceless paintings, you don't have to pay taxes on them if you are willing to show them to the public. If I ever get to England, I intend to fight out what priceless paintings they have and ask for a show. There's more than one way to get into a Castle.

 

[Madeline]

You have a fascinating family history, Againshelia. My family's story is that few people had reading skills and even fewer were independent of the RCC. If your wedding or birth or death was not recorded by the local parish, you effectively did not exist.

I'm happy we don't live in such a society.

 

[Againsheila]

You have a fascinating family history, Againshelia. My family's story is that few people had reading skills and even fewer were independent of the RCC. If your wedding or birth or death was not recorded by the local parish, you effectively did not exist.

I'm happy we don't live in such a society.

I think everyone has fascinating family history. Thanks to my Aunt and Uncle for researching it. They were all gung ho when they researched it. We had a family reunion and they had a Winnebago with a chart covering the entire side of it showing how we were all related. My cousin brought her boyfriend and before he could say anything my Aunt asked him his name and let him off to the chart to find out how we were related. She didn't know he was a boyfriend... After about 30 minutes of looking and asking him the name of his parents and grandparents, and never giving him a chance to say anything, she finally gave up and said, I don't see you on here. He sheepishly explained he was just a boyfriend.

Meanwhile the rest of us were just watching the show and having a good laugh.