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.
In modern understanding the difference does seem to be slight. In many cultures though two individuals could be "bonded" without it being seen as analogous to marriage. Although an odd example to give among modern things in Star Trek the Klingons have various "bonding rituals" which are separate from marriage. It might give some sense of it. The decline of feudalism and tribalism might have made many of these rites meaningless in the West, but I believe there are still cultures that have non-marital unions.
One was adelphopoiesis, which Boswell indicated was a kind of same-sex union but even he didn't precisely deem it to be same-sex marriage. It's agreed that in modern Eastern Orthodoxy adelphopoiesis is more of a "best friends forever" thing rather than anything like a marriage. Jonathan and King David also seem to be united in a "brother making" union that was, generally agreed, to be non-sexual. Other societies bonded two males with some sexual purpose, but without it being married as such. I think something like this was the case of the Theban band and possibly in Fujian.
As a compromise one Evangelical, Joe Carter, indicated that a same-sex union should be allowed but that it should not be specified that it's romantic/sexual. That close friends be just as allowed to engage in it as homosexual lovers. Although this struck me as a pretty strong compromise for an Evangelical it was, unsurprisingly, repellent to those who favor gay-rights. I once suggested in a discussion that the only differences between a same-sex union and a marriage should be adoption rights (that same-sex couples be treated the same as same-sex siblings in terms of adoption) and the use of the word "matrimony." That if this seemed to make it "second-class" perhaps people in an SSU could have some affirmative action or tax benefit to compensate. I thought this was fairly liberal, but it was also seen as "unfair" and repugnant.
None of this changes the fact that "We use the word marriage to describe many types of unions, marriage of two companies etc.. But for some reason, it becomes a sacred word when it comes to gays, I suspect it has more to do with bigotry then the definition of a word".
I'm sympathetic to that as I traditionally see civil marriage as almost meaningless or merely a government status/contract. However for whatever reason people think civil marriage actually means something significant or even "sacred", this was true before the same-sex marriage debates, and having that change could in theory effect society in unforeseen ways.
I understand the difference traditionally, however - I guess I should have been allowed to get "married." Since my husband and I are not religious - I guess it would be considered more of a civil union? It really doesn't matter to me. However, if you want to make "marriage" a strictly religious rite and civil unions for the non-religious - I think it should be split that way for everyone - not based on sexual preference at all. But I guess that wouldn't really solve anything unless you still made "marriage" legal for everyone - since there are some gays that are religious and might want a "marriage" and not a civil union. I guess the only option is to legalize gay marriage and make it equal for all!
I understand the difference traditionally, however - I guess I should have been allowed to get "married." Since my husband and I are not religious - I guess it would be considered more of a civil union? It really doesn't matter to me. However, if you want to make "marriage" a strictly religious rite and civil unions for the non-religious - I think it should be split that way for everyone - not based on sexual preference at all.
First off, it's not a ban on GAY marriage it's a ban on SAME SEX marriage. Heterosexual aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex either.
Marriage can be defined many different ways but THE definition that has been in use for thousands of years is as a union between a man and a woman. Try to spin things around but THAT is what is meant and that is why people are against same sex marriage.
If you start playing with things like that where do you stop? A guy in Japan just recently married a cartoon character. Another person married a blow up doll. If you start skewering the definitions of words they lose all meaning and stupid things start to happen.
Quote:
But I guess that wouldn't really solve anything unless you still made "marriage" legal for everyone - since there are some gays that are religious and might want a "marriage" and not a civil union. I guess the only option is to legalize gay marriage and make it equal for all!
You've already stated that marriage is a meaningless term. If it's meaningless why does it matter. Why do homosexuals insist on it being called marriage? Lets call it BOB.
It ironic that you bring up the religious aspect. That's the last place you want to go when you talk about GAY marriage.
True christians can't be homosexual. The bible says so. Homosexuals also can't be Islamic or Jewish. In fact I don't think there is a religion( that follows their own writings) that accepts Homosexuals.
First off, it's not a ban on GAY marriage it's a ban on SAME SEX marriage. Heterosexual aren't allowed to marry people of the same sex either.
Marriage can be defined many different ways but THE definition that has been in use for thousands of years is as a union between a man and a woman. Try to spin things around but THAT is what is meant and that is why people are against same sex marriage.
If you start playing with things like that where do you stop? A guy in Japan just recently married a cartoon character. Another person married a blow up doll. If you start skewering the definitions of words they lose all meaning and stupid things start to happen.
You've already stated that marriage is a meaningless term. If it's meaningless why does it matter. Why do homosexuals insist on it being called marriage? Lets call it BOB.
It ironic that you bring up the religious aspect. That's the last place you want to go when you talk about GAY marriage.
True christians can't be homosexual. The bible says so. Homosexuals also can't be Islamic or Jewish. In fact I don't think there is a religion( that follows their own writings) that accepts Homosexuals.
I'm not going to waste too much of my time getting into this with you. We obviously completely disagree on this issue - nobody is going to change my mind and it doesn't sound like anybody is going to change yours either. And that's fine.
I think marriage should be between 2 consenting adults. I don't see anything wrong with rewriting the rules of marriage. When things are out of date and prejudiced, sometimes they have to change. Nobody is suggesting allowing people to marry pets, cartoon characters, etc. Marriage should be between 2 consenting adults. That is my opinion.
And yes -there are homosexuals that are Christians. Last time I checked - you weren't God. You don't decide who is a true Christian.
I'm not a Christian, though - so what do I care. I'm just a human being wishing all human beings had equal rights.
Oh - and there are lots of gay Jews. Jews seem to be very accepting of gays.
I'm not sure any state actually has the kind of full-out ban on gay marriage that many states had when they banned interracial marriage.
In Oregon, until 1951, a Chinese person could spend three months in prison for marrying a white person. Let alone a white person marrying a black person. In Nevada until 1959 "fornication" between whites and blacks was punishable by fines or even jail time. In Indiana until 1965 a white person could be fined for marrying someone who was one-eighth black. And until the Loving decision Delaware could fine you for having a black/white marriage. (I intentionally chose states outside of the former Confederacy)
I'm not sure any state actually has the kind of full-out ban on gay marriage that many states had when they banned interracial marriage.
In Oregon, until 1951, a Chinese person could spend three months in prison for marrying a white person. Let alone a white person marrying a black person. In Nevada until 1959 "fornication" between whites and blacks was punishable by fines or even jail time. In Indiana until 1965 a white person could be fined for marrying someone who was one-eighth black. And until the Loving decision Delaware could fine you for having a black/white marriage. (I intentionally chose states outside of the former Confederacy)
As a compromise one Evangelical, Joe Carter, indicated that a same-sex union should be allowed but that it should not be specified that it's romantic/sexual. That close friends be just as allowed to engage in it as homosexual lovers. Although this struck me as a pretty strong compromise for an Evangelical it was, unsurprisingly, repellent to those who favor gay-rights. I once suggested in a discussion that the only differences between a same-sex union and a marriage should be adoption rights (that same-sex couples be treated the same as same-sex siblings in terms of adoption) and the use of the word "matrimony." That if this seemed to make it "second-class" perhaps people in an SSU could have some affirmative action or tax benefit to compensate. I thought this was fairly liberal, but it was also seen as "unfair" and repugnant.
Substitute interracial for "same-sex" and you'll see why this separate-but-equal approach seems less than acceptable.
I understand some of that. There was some gay guy who got assaulted here recently for winking at two guys and what's almost sadder is he may not have even really been winking. Just been a tired guy blinking a lot or maybe he had something in his eye. (Even if he was intentionally winking that's pretty benign flirting.)
Granted being a Christian type I would say generally people should try to improve themselves rather than just accepting what they are. To quote Hepburn in African Queen "Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above." However as a happy-go-lucky and slightly lazy person I am somewhat sympathetic to the just accepting yourself and chilling out.
I agree. Obviously as an atheist I don't think we were 'put' on this earth for any particular purpose and that all evolution wants from us is to outcompete the other organic life-forms. However, that, as you say, is something that we can rise above if we feel that there is good reason for us to do so.
Given that Ms. Sayer had a reason for sobering Alnutt up to make sure they survived, is the question of rise above it doesn't neccessarily mean discard it. Example, the drink thing can be a nuisance when people become soddenly obnoxious. There's a health angle, too. On the other hand, those who say No no, because of their interpretation of their Holy Book are becoming the problem, not the drink.
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.
