Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You again are speaking in tongues: there was never gay marriage in any western culture.
and the goal posts are moved.
Yet the western culture was born out of the Middle East (Mesopotamia anyone?).
And since western culture is based on the ancient cultures of the Middle East and ancient Europe, your the one that is actaully speaking in toungues.
and it is widely recognized that in these ancient cultures, long before Christianity distored the ceremony of marriage, homosexual unions was common place, and accepted. so much so that literature actively describes the ceremonies of homosexual couples in great detail.
and even in recent history (no more than 300 years ago), marriage was about owning a woman, or before that to take on multiple wives so that a man would be guaranteed a son (heir).
Quote:
There was homosexuality and same sex cohabitation and you could probably stretch it to say say there were same-sex unions, but never anything sanctioned by the state and equal to heterosexual marriages.
Emperor Nero would greatly disagree with you. and seeing as he was the Head of state, at the time, he recognized and officiated homosexual unions and ceremonies.
Quote:
As far as polygamy is concerned, again, it was never a part of Western culture.
the Royal families of France, Spain, England, Scotland, Germany, and Russia would disagree with you.
Again, because society finds certain behaviors repulsive and socially undesirable. For thousands of years marriage was an union between man and a woman and society does not see a reason to change that.
"Society" is changing, as it always has. What was once considered repulsive and socially undesirable can become completely acceptable. It was once believed that blacks shouldn't be free, women shouldn't vote, and people from different religions shouldn't marry each other. Times change.
and the goal posts are moved. Yet the western culture was born out of the Middle East (Mesopotamia anyone?).
And since western culture is based on the ancient cultures of the Middle East and ancient Europe, your the one that is actaully speaking in toungues. and it is widely recognized that in these ancient cultures, long before Christianity distored the ceremony of marriage, homosexual unions was common place, and accepted. so much so that literature actively describes the ceremonies of homosexual couples in great detail.
Really? Source please....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
and even in recent history (no more than 300 years ago), marriage was about owning a woman, or before that to take on multiple wives so that a man would be guaranteed a son (heir).
Really? Where in Western Europe polygamy was sanctioned by the state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Emperor Nero would greatly disagree with you. and seeing as he was the Head of state, at the time, he recognized and officiated homosexual unions and ceremonies.
No, he is said to actually merry another man himself. Also, emperor Nero was crazy, had several wives, killed his own mother and most likely burned Rome.
If you ever get to read his profile, even on wikipedia, hardly a poster boy for same-sex marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
the Royal families of France, Spain, England, Scotland, Germany, and Russia would disagree with you.
Wikipedia is not a reputable source. Shocking, I know. It's a collection of facts and is a great starting point to get information you're looking for.
No it is not but it is usually right on the money, usually uptodate and balanced.
Coincidentally wikipeida view matches exactly what i was tautght in school.
Although it lacks precision and nuances of other sources it is a great tool for quick reference.
No it is not but it is usually right on the money, usually uptodate and balanced.
Coincidentally wikipeida view matches exactly what i was tautght in school.
Although it lacks precision and nuances of other sources it is a great tool for quick reference.
Be that as it may, it's still not reputable.
I agree that the information is great and is always being peer-reviewed and all that good stuff; however, that doesn't change the fact that on it's own, it's useless.
If people want to use that to support other articles/sources, then fine so be it. To use wiki on it's own is just showing a lack of motivation to go and research one's stance and causes their position to come into question.
Glad to see there's at least some good news out there (not that this is news to me, personally). I would suggest the anti-gay crowd come to embrace this reality, because there is absolutely nothing they can do to stop it.
Time and time again, evidence has been provided to explain exactly why gays should be allowed to marry and adopt children.
Time and time again, the anti-gay crowd has failed to provide ANY evidence to support their opinion.
Every generation is just a bit smarter than the previous one. I have faith in our youth to separate fact from fiction. I think we all need to remember that there is hope even in darkness, but also that the world's looking brighter on this subject with every passing day
(of a person or their actions) Characterized by sexually abnormal and unacceptable practices or tendencies.
(of a thing) Having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.
Nope. I didn't pervert the meaning. You are right about something, just because it is written does not make it correct...like what you said above. Parents does not mean father and mother together, parents of children divorce all the time, just because they aren't together does not take away the FACT that they are still the parents. A father and mother get divorced and the father marries a man, the father is still the father and his partner is by definition the child's step-father.
one man cant marry another man that is perversion, like a pedophile that molest kids, is a perversion! the thing that i don't get is how normal you seem to think these perversions are .it boggles my mind. soon pedophiles will be fighting for their freedom and rights to marry young kids.
I don't disagree that a father marrying his daughter is repulsive, but if they are two consenting adults and want to do so (for whatever reason) then why should they not be allowed to do so?
So here you are giving tacit support for legalising incestuous marriage, and the post before you were doing the same for Polygamy.
thus you have just debunked your own argument, against the slippery slope.
according to you, we should not only leagalise s.s marriage but also incest and bigamy.
The mind boggles.
aren't you suprised that there is so much resistance to the idea of man marrying man?
Last edited by Kenneth-Kaunda; 07-26-2012 at 09:52 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Source please....
