Washington D.C. has a new Gay Marriage Proposal

[REVxERIK]

I think we have a good idea how Marion Barry will vote on it.

Barry calls gay marriage immoral at rally


By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade
Apr 28 2009, 3:41 PM

D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) startled gay activists Tuesday by calling same-sex marriage immoral at a downtown rally organized by an anti-gay minister.

About 150 people turned out for the rally called by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

Jackson, who had predicted more than 1,000 people would attend the event, called on city residents to demand that the Council vote down a same-sex marriage recognition amendment scheduled for a second and final vote May 5.
....

Barry calls gay marriage immoral at rally - Washington Blade

Man, is Barry an embarrassment.

i wish i could meet this guy and own him in a debate

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

Table Set for DC Gay Marriage Debate | NBC Washington

The language in the bill states that a marriage is a union between 2 people, regardless of their sex.

What say you?

There is no need to change the definition of "marriage".

 

[KittenKoder]

dont give kitten a hard time

Meh, you know what I think of Wicrapedia anyway!

Anyhow, the polygamy was a redefinition of marriage.

1)How would i know what you think of Wikipedia?

2)How so? Polygamy is quite common in nature. Hell, even the bible defines marriage as one man, several wives, and a few live-in whores of lower status than a wife. One man is said to have 700 wives and 300 live-in whores This goes back as far as we know, in many cultures , and may stem from the same evolutionary roots as the "harems" we see in many of the great apes. "Marriage" is simply a cultural/anthropological/religious term referring to a number of arrangements recognizing varying levels of sexual exclusiveness and solidifying political agreements and financial; transactions.

Not you, PP. Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it? It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people. This whole "institution" is the mixing of religion and law (giving law control over religion or vice versa). The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

 

[REVxERIK]

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

Table Set for DC Gay Marriage Debate | NBC Washington

The language in the bill states that a marriage is a union between 2 people, regardless of their sex.

What say you?

There is no need to change the definition of "marriage".

do you hate homosexuals?

 

[Si modo]

I think we have a good idea how Marion Barry will vote on it.

Barry calls gay marriage immoral at rally


By LOU CHIBBARO JR, Washington Blade
Apr 28 2009, 3:41 PM

D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) startled gay activists Tuesday by calling same-sex marriage immoral at a downtown rally organized by an anti-gay minister.

About 150 people turned out for the rally called by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md.

Jackson, who had predicted more than 1,000 people would attend the event, called on city residents to demand that the Council vote down a same-sex marriage recognition amendment scheduled for a second and final vote May 5.
....

Barry calls gay marriage immoral at rally - Washington Blade

Man, is Barry an embarrassment.

i wish i could meet this guy and own him in a debate

Where is the sport in that?

 

[REVxERIK]

I think we have a good idea how Marion Barry will vote on it. Barry calls gay marriage immoral at rally - Washington Blade

Man, is Barry an embarrassment.

i wish i could meet this guy and own him in a debate

Where is the sport in that?

good point. debating politicians is like debating a book anyway

 

[actsnoblemartin]

if your asking me, i dont hate anybody.

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

There is no need to change the definition of "marriage".

do you hate homosexuals?

 

[Setarcos]

Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it?

Depends on how you use the term. If you use it as a descriptive term for the social ethics and sexual availability of members of the group, it is. If you mean the legal recognition of such unions by a State, then it's as "unnatural" as the State itself.

It's a matter of semantics at that point, I suppose. Personally, i don't see the "naturalness" of it being important, lest we fall to the naturalistic fallacy (also known as Hume's Guillotine)

It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people.

I have cited evidence to the contrary. do you have anything other than your assertion to counter?

The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for: Display Options: (Select option to change) Hide Example Sentences Hide Glosses Show Frequency Counts Show Database Locations Show Lexical File Info Show Lexical File Numbers Show Sense Keys Show Sense Numbers Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun

• S: (n) marriage, matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock (the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)) "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
• S: (n) marriage, married couple, man and wife (two people who are married to each other) "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
• S: (n) marriage, wedding, marriage ceremony (the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony) "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
• S: (n) marriage (a close and intimate union) "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

WordNet home page

all other uses seem to stem from the one I have drawn attention to

Again, though, it seems a moot point

 

[KittenKoder]

Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it?

Depends on how you use the term. If you use it as a descriptive term for the social ethics and sexual availability of members of the group, it is. If you mean the legal recognition of such unions by a State, then it's as "unnatural" as the State itself.

It's a matter of semantics at that point, I suppose. Personally, i don't see the "naturalness" of it being important, lest we fall to the naturalistic fallacy (also known as Hume's Guillotine)

It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people.

I have cited evidence to the contrary. do you have anything other than your assertion to counter?

The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

WordNet Search - 3.0 - WordNet home page - Glossary - Help
Word to search for: Display Options: (Select option to change) Hide Example Sentences Hide Glosses Show Frequency Counts Show Database Locations Show Lexical File Info Show Lexical File Numbers Show Sense Keys Show Sense Numbers Key: "S:" = Show Synset (semantic) relations, "W:" = Show Word (lexical) relations
Noun

• S: (n) marriage, matrimony, union, spousal relationship, wedlock (the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)) "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
• S: (n) marriage, married couple, man and wife (two people who are married to each other) "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
• S: (n) marriage, wedding, marriage ceremony (the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony) "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
• S: (n) marriage (a close and intimate union) "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"

WordNet home page

all other uses seem to stem from the one I have drawn attention to

Again, though, it seems a moot point

I was speaking more technical than that, but that works to.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Not you, PP. Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it? It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people. This whole "institution" is the mixing of religion and law (giving law control over religion or vice versa). The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

No Marriage is not natural. Putting a written contract on love is not in the spirit of love .

 

[actsnoblemartin]

committing to love your spouse , through death do you part in front of god, is more then just a piece of paper

Not you, PP. Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it? It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people. This whole "institution" is the mixing of religion and law (giving law control over religion or vice versa). The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

No Marriage is not natural. Putting a written contract on love is not in the spirit of love .

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

 

[REVxERIK]

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

do i need to explain how totally not even in the same area gay marriage is to polygamy?

 

[Setarcos]

what's a poligamist?

as for the second half of your post,
http://www.usmessageboard.com/general-discussion/90579-marriage.html

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

I hear what you're saying about the "till death do us part in front of god thing". ITs like claiming your love or making a public commitment which I do understand has deep meaning for many.

Did you notice this law states a marriage between TWO people, regardless of gender. I thought that it was unique that this proposal did that...made sure people knew it wasn't a backdoor to marrying your cactus or marrying 3 people.

 

[REVxERIK]

I dont think it makes sense to change the definition of marriage for 7% of the population, and furthermore if we do, we will have to allow poligamists, because their is no good reason to deny them their rights as well

Marriage should have one definition/meaning not three

maybe you should read the definition first before babbling

 

[Sherry]

If they could all be as amusing as the couple on "Modern Family", then I'd definitely support it.

 

[REVxERIK]

If they could all be as amusing as the couple on "Modern Family", then I'd definitely support it.

that is a hilarious show! i'm totally watching it tonight!

 

[KittenKoder]

committing to love your spouse , through death do you part in front of god, is more then just a piece of paper

Not you, PP. Marriage isn't a natural thing, is it? It's a human concept which, when dealing with humans, was original just a commitment between two people. This whole "institution" is the mixing of religion and law (giving law control over religion or vice versa). The word however means "a union between two items" ... it does not pertain just to humanity.

No Marriage is not natural. Putting a written contract on love is not in the spirit of love .

Then there should be no laws involved, period.

 

[Valerie]

I agree god is quite clear on what he wants for his world, and us.

If we choose to disobey him, that is on us

But it has always been between one man one woman, and should remain as such

What about the separation of church and state and equality under the law for all citizens...? The government should be able to declare certain citizens less worthy of being socially secure?