Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
My personal belief is that if there is any discontinuity in equal rights whatsoever, than that is not okay. Even if it is just a word, barring someone from it is discrimination no matter how you look at it. If I were gay, I probably wouldn`t care about the word itself, but rather just knowing that I wasn`t being discriminated against regardless of how small or trivial that discrimination was.
I was arguing about *marriage* and *ancient Rome*. Nothing else.
[quote]we should be educated enough to treat the LGBT community as equals who deserve all the same rights as everybody else, including marriage. [/quote]
I disagree with some of the assumptions implicit in that statement.
Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you for any reason must be uneducated is unreasonable.
`the LGBT community`....bleh. We`re not all similar enough for there to be a single community. It`s just defining people by one actually rather unimportant aspect of them, and that gets on my tits.
[quote]all the same rights as everybody else, including marriage.[/quote]
what do you want - the rights or the word? Right now, it is one or the other. I`ll have the rights. I think they`re more important than a word.
It`s worth mentioning here that the Romans didn`t even have a word for "homosexual", which shows how different their views were.
Caesar was mocked for his affair with the King of Bythnia. For some while, he was best known for that and for being spectacularly in debt (which he was also mocked for).
Homosexual anal sex was seen quite differently in Rome depending on whether you were giving or receiving. It wasn`t as clear-cut as you think it was.
[quote]BUT same sex marriage happened.[/quote]
Apparently only with two emperors, both of whom were way out of the norm and both of whom were assassinated.
Many Romans were actively bisexual, although they didn`t have a word for that either. It was traditionally considered unsuitably passive for a man past his youth to be penetrated, but Caesar only got seriously mocked for it because of his high profile public image and show of tradtionalism.
*Marriage* is an
You`re right about the horse, but both were rumoured to have had affairs with their mothers.
[quote]Despite his vilification by the Christians because of this, Nero was quite popular with the general populace of the Roman Empire.[/quote]
Not by that time, he wasn`t. Especially after the Golden House fiasco.
[quote]Whether they are role models or not, they are still examples of what and what was not legal within Rome.[/quote]
Two emperors, both reviled and murdered. They don`t serve as examples of what was legal or normal. Elagabalus married a Vestal virgin! That doesn`t mean it was legal, let alone normal.
[quote]Gay marriage was legal, plain and simple. Otherwise the Christian rulers later on wouldn`t have specifically outlawed it.[/quote]
They outlawed homosexual sex. Which was legal and normal.
He`s not a role model I`d look up to.
Elagabalus lasted only 4 years before being murdered, during which time he managed to offend pretty much everyone in the empire. Not for being gay - Romans at the time didn`t much care about that. For sacrilege and excessively bizarre behaviour.
Also not a good role model.
I can`t find any references to homosexual *marriage* by Martial. Lots of homosexual sex, but not *marriage*.
I doubt your image of a society in which homosexual marriage was normal from the beginning of Rome. That would have been far too Greek for the Romans until the very late republic.
Consider, for example, how Julius Caesar was ridiculed for his alleged homosexual affair.
Please provide a reference. Also, you said it happened right up until the Christian takeover, but Rome was founded in 753 BC *with a very Puritan morality*. That had relaxed hugely by the late Republican period, so I wouldn`t rule out gay marriage in the early Imperial period, but I haven`t seen any evidence of it.
[quote]Several emperors actually married men as well as women.[/quote]
The rules for emperors were different, if they had enough power. You cite only two. More on that below.
[quote]Nero married two different men in public ceremonies.[/quote]
Nero was insane. He had an affair with his mother. He ennobled his favouite horse. And those were among his least offensive and bizarre actions.
[quote]Emperor Elababalus married an athlete in a public ceremony. [/quote]
When? I couldn`t find any references to it.
Look it`s really simple math here. First, I`ve been through a divorce and it cost me through the nose. I`m paid up and good now. Took me a little bit but I`m good. Legally speaking, what makes gays and lesbians exempt from our legal system in that respect? If I have to pay out to the state and part with some of my stuff that I worked for, guess what...when they get a divorce...so do they.
Can you provide any references to that?
Homosexual sex was normal in ancient Rome, but that`s not marriage. The further back you go in Rome, the more restrictive marriage laws were. I would be very surprised if formally recognised homosexual marriages ever existed in ancient Rome.
Unless they pull out a cup."
yeah girl in girl is totally ok, because we dont mid the fact that one girl will make a coat out of the other
better than for me to find out my son is gay and youre marrying him! that would suck a lot more...
Your face is gross.
God forbid the word "Equal" ever actually happen.
And that means girl in girl is still ok.
Unless they pull out a cup.
I do not know how you make the leap from Civil Rights to gun ownership and then link it to the Founding Fathers (who by definition were Left-wing). You might want to actually READ the Constitution again, your so called gun rights are concomitant with a state militia, not meant to be an individual right at all.That aside, if you want to have all that military equipment and have some place to play with it, not harm anyone or the environment I dont care. I do not have the time to try to control other people`s lives.
What, doesn`t everyone?"That made me laugh.
Of course we have, how else would we have an opinion on anything? The only difference is who you`ve been brainwashed by...
Every morning, 2 pints in the left ear, add a splash of washing up liquid, headbang for a minute, water out the right ear.
What, doesn`t everyone?
You could stand to be a bit more specific...
*punches you in the face*
You seem like a nice fella` hows about we go back to my place and watch Will & Grace while we drink wine?
True, but don`t you see yourself as being better than that?
"I`m no worse than them" isn`t a good course of action if you want the moral high ground.
Not if it`s done as equality rather than gay rights. If the prevailing force is gay rights, it will cause prejudice and discrimination against heterosexuals and the more power gay rights has, the more prejudice and discrimination it will cause. That is inevitable with group rights, because it`s what group rights is for. Oh, there would be some gay rights advocates saying "That`s not what we meant!", but they wouldn`t be running the show.
If it`s done as equality instead, it won`t really change society. What would change, really change, if genuinely no distinction was made between homo- and heterosexuality?
It`s called civil partnership in the UK, not civil union. Just in case anyone wants to check the legal status of it. It is identical to marriage, but people should check things for themselves. The only difference is one custom - marriage vows are spoken, partnership vows are signed. Either is legally binding in both cases, so it`s solely a matter of custom reflecting the change in levels of literacy over history.
But I disagree about condescendingly dismissing the legitimate concerns as "conservatives blubbering".
I have a spanner to throw in your "slippery slope" argument:
Do you argue that the same is true of "inter-racial" marriage? After all, that used to be illegal in the USA too, and not all that long ago. Do you think that making "inter-racial" marriage legal inevitably leads to paedophiles marrying their victims? If you don`t believe that, why don`t you? It the same slippery slope argument that you`re making.
And those telling United States same-sex couples to "just get a civil union," well... civil unions in most U.S. states are lacking 1,138 rights. That`s totally fair, right?
[quote]it`s a contract now because the govt made it their business.[/quote]
We do know that prior to government involvement marriage was a personal thing, not necessarily a religious thing. That`s why the essence of a wedding is still the vows (which is what `wedding` means).
So I argue that the origin of marriage is neither religion nor government.
[quote]i think the problem is the definition of marriage itself as still a great many ppl, when they talk about marriage, they refer to it as a religious institution.[/quote]
I agree, which is why I think fighting about just the word `marriage` is counter-productive except for people who really do want to force religions to submit and obey them.
A few people are already suggesting exactly that on the basis that if gay marriage is not allowed and straight marriage is, that`s anti-gay discrimination. It *is* discrimination against gays. Which is what so many people are objecting to, isn`t it?
If gay marriage is legalised in the USA, there will be more people making that argument. Probably not enough people with enough influence to force it through. Probably.
It is a legitimate concern for theists of religions that disapprove of homosexuality.
There`s more - even the scantiest knowledge of the subject shows that people who passionately support group politics, advocating more for a single group of people only, are rarely content with their favoured group only having the same rights as everyone else, and even more so if they advocate group pride. Ever seen any gay pride stuff? Bet you have.
If gays want the same legal status they can get civil unions in many states. In every state where the issue has came to a public vote, Gay marriage has gone down to defeat. If it`s not stopped here, Then polygamy and child marriage (Pedos marring their victims) will be next.
The Crowd: Tell us more!
1) Made up his own definition, which has changed twice so far. 2) The guy who quoted an internet post as his source for the meaning of a word. 3) The people cheering them on like they just presented an argument Socrates himself couldn`t have ever aspired to creating.
Yes. I opened a dictionary. I did this because someone else said "The meaning of this word is X", and I couldn`t find (via any tool available to me, online or off), anything to back it up.
I figured a dictionary is a good place to start.
Mainly because it is. It`s a book with the meanings of words. People were talking about the meaning of a word. It`s a thing created for this purpose.
This is not rocket science.
You forget that the US was founded with the principles of separation of church and state. The government is not only allowed to impose its laws, but it is expected to. The same cannot be said for churches; laws are not their jurisdiction.
If you oppose it for any reason involving the bible or religion, please, just kill yourself, your choice of deity will be much happier to have you with them than we will here.
I also think this guy is not only bright but hot as well. How can anyone not recognize the brilliance of this statement and the consciousness raising it leads people to.
...And hospital visitation rights, and tax rights, and federal rights, and and and...
Just thought I`d add that. C:
And the state`s involvement in marriage is NOT based on religion, it is based on PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Give it time, gays, the march of progress is inexorably forward, and conservatives have ALWAYS resisted granting broader rights, and lost.
2. davy you just PWNED this arguement.
3. seems like most people here agree that gay marriage should be legal. why, then, is it not in most states? i think its the older generation with their old fashioned views. lets just wait for the old people to die off, and continue to vote. its slow, but there is progress.
4. seriously though, i cant even believe that this is such an issue in the states. i love being canadian and having gay marriage legal.
5.DONT LIKE GAY MARRIAGE? THEN SHUT THE F UCK UP AND DONT GET ONE.
[quote]don`t call it marriage[/quote]
Don`t like your so-called patented, self-professed copyrighted institutions (such as the Holy Sanctimony of Marriage, not my capitalisation) being hijacked? Then don`t call it Christmas, dicks. It wasn`t when the kid was born. It was convenient for being already there as a pagan festival.
Also, sorry, but I have to get this off my chest. What if Mary told a wee white lie that she had been dicked by an angel, impregnating her with the seed of God blah blah blah, when in fact she just had a quick roll in the hay with the stable boy? And she had to make up something fast, being up the duff as she was, while betrothed to her husband Joseph, whom she hadn`t yet dicked?
Just saying, cause it`s important. Whole religions have been based on this kind of sh*t.
...Wait a sec...
Black people: Denied the same rights as the whites (e.g. same seating on the bus), now seen as abhorrent and shameful in the extreme.
Women: Denied the same rights as the men (e.g. voting), now seen as abhorrent and shameful in the extreme.
Homosexuals: Denied the same rights as the heterosexuals (e.g. full marriage), up until now deemed not acceptable by religious apologists.
Hang in there, gay fellows. You`re just the last in line. Your emancipation will come, as soon as we ditch the religious bigots.
That seems odd, does it not?
I agree. ^-^
legal: as seen through the eyes of the government
religious: as seen over by the church
Now, nobody can do anything about a religion banning any form of marriage from their place of worship. They have that right in their freedom of religion. But, when it comes to legal marriage, there really shouldnt be any couple of consenting adults that are barred from this action. Religion has no say in this act, and to ban anyone from this action is making them less than a citizen. We all live in the same country, and are all supposed to be protected by the same blanket of rights. To deny one man of a right given to another is just wrong, and proves that there is no such thing as a free country.
(sorry for the long post)
awful- deserving of awe brave- cowardice (as in bravado) counterfeit- legitimate copy cute- bow-legged guess- take aim knight- boy luxury- sinful self indulgence neck- parcel of land (as in neck of the woods) notorious- famous nuisance- injury, harm quick- alive (as in quicksilver) sophisticated- corrupted tell- to count (as in bank teller) truant- beggar
I would so let him marry any of my kids.
Marriage:1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross>
To answer my own question, it`s because those laws, while based in religion, have become common law by tradition.
This could go in circles forever, but...
If I choose to have a negative opinion of a certain group of people then what concern of it is yours? Don`t worry about me. I don`t have anything against gay people, but if I did, and didn`t externalize it in any way, then it`s absolutley no concern of yours and none of your business. So, take your own advice.
Also, if we all followed your advice this website would be dead.
That sounds as if you think there are problems that accompany secularism. I personally believe that secularism eliminates many of the problems caused by religion/religious conflict, so why should there be boundaries? I mean, contrariwise you could say that Christianity overstepped its boundaries centuries ago...
If you discriminate against another adult, who has consensual sex with another like minded adult, no matter what their sex, you are a twat! Their personal life is nothing to do with you! If you discrimate against two consenting adults (no matter what their sex) who acctually love each other, your a nazi!
Worry about your own damn life and what YOU do!
Anal and oral sex provides nothing, yet it seems very tolerated in our society. I`d go so far as to say that by sheer numbers, there are more hetero married couples who practice anal sex and contraception techniques than all gay men put together. If it`s about being productive, then you should have a problem with any sex that isn`t vaginal.
My point was that you cannot simply say something is fact because that is what it is defined as. Just as you showed by linking to a different definition than mine for existence, there are many different definitions for every word. It just depends on how the creator of the dictionary decides to interpret the word as. True, definitions can be applied to situations as you said, but that doesn`t erase the fact that definitions are subjective in nature.
As long as one definition fits the description, you can happily apply the word to the situation.
You could argue that 2 and 5 could be those definitions, however, it isn`t any more definitive than the ability to call Atheism a religion based on Religion`s entry.
I could not find anything to back up your definition.
It also makes several assumptions. Either: This demonstrates that God cannot be proven. However, when applied to any level of Nihilism, the same argument could be made that you cannot mathematically or via indirect reasoning demonstrate a table exists. You can infer, via Occham`s, but not prove. Prove is a very strong word.
Or: Definitions are tricksy things. However, again, you should be using official definitions, especially when discussing language and common usage.
So in the long run, does your definition matter? No. Only if you want it to, or if you want to tell self serving stories about teachers to your friends on the internet.
I took my definition of existence from a Physics textbook. I`d give you the information for the book but I returned it a while back. I`m not going to say it`s the best definition for existence, but it drove my point across: Just because that`s how someone put it in a dictionary, doesn`t mean it`s absolute fact.
There is no criteria for evidence in common usage or official usage of the term, let alone proof.
Take your ball and go home.
If they`re human, and haven`t done anything atrocious or unforgivable, let them have rights. What`s the big deal with people being gay? So what, a dude likes a dude.
Haha just kidding! :D
Let`s get a little technical here. The definition of "existence" is that it can be proven to be in a state of being either by direct observation or indirect reasoning by scientific or mathematic fact (quoted from npdarren). So if we follow your standards, God doesn`t actually exist.
Ball`s in your court, Lionhart.
Are you sure about that? I`m not, because it`s a very common misconception here in England - almost everyone thinks it exists and it doesn`t. USA common law was mostly English common law, so perhaps the same misconception exists.
But the original meaning of marriage (i.e. the Roman meaning) definitely did have marriage of that form. usus marriage - live together, state that you`re married and do not spend more than three consecutive nights apart in a year.
Various gods could be referenced as well. Hercules, the guardian. Juno, for marriage itself. Venus, for love. Fortunata, perhaps, for luck. There were many gods.
But the key point was the statements of the spouses, as the key point was always the intent of the spouses. If people stated they were married, they were married. Ceremonies would be added on top most of the time, but the guts of marriage was simply the repeated consent to marry by both spouses.
If you want formal oaths for the real meaning of the word marriage, here they are in English:
Where and when you are Gaius, I am Gaia.
Where and when you are Gaia, I am Gaius.
In summary, your argument is wrong.
You`ve picked a losing argument there. The word `marriage` is an Anglo-French version of a Latin word. It predates the Christian takeover of Rome by centuries, so if you`re really dead set on the real meaning of the word you can`t possibly connect it to Christianity at all in any way.
You could formally connect it to a single god, but that god would be Jupiter.
On top of that, it would only really apply to the nobility and was archaic more than two millenia ago. The cōnfarreātiō form of marriage was for the patrician class only and even amongst that class had become almost unheard of by the late Republican period.
In almost all Roman marriages (i.e. the "real" meaning of the word), what mattered was what the two spouses said to each other and to other people. Variou
I am pretty sure most Anti-Gay people would rather you screw their daughter then their son...
Or is this all completely going over my head?
On behalf of all the people who don`t get it: Marrying a woman would not make him straight, he would still be gay, but he would be living a lie, and an innocent woman would be stuck in a loveless, sexless marriage to someone who prefers dudes.
He would not screw anyone`s daughter. He is gay. But he would have to marry a woman in order to live a lie, if the law does not allow him to be with a man. The woman might not like that her husband is into dudes.
I don`t think the law should recognize a "real" hetero church marriage any differently than they recognize an atheist hetero marriage (legal but not recognized by the church) or a gay "civil union" (also not recognized by the church). They should all be the same in the eyes of the law, even though only the first one is a "real" marriage according to the church.
"Religious types, don`t like gay marriage? Then shut the f*ck up and don`t get one"
That`s the religious interpretation of marriage, ask google to define the word and you`ll find many interpretations from around the globe that don`t include the religious dogma.
Lion: first of all, where does it say that it has to be between a man and a woman? Secondly, anything having to do with "God" is not a valid legal definition because laws may not establish an official religion in the United States. A church can use any definition of "marriage" they wish, and in fact, your definition is probably the best one for a church to use, but that cannot be a legal definition in the United States because it establishes an official religious belief. I don`t think the law should recognize a "real" hetero church marr
I fail to see his point here.
Or is this all completely going over my head?o.O
The pencil-shaped thing in his left pocket?