-
SIG TOO BIG -
"Various types of same-sex marriages have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles. While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured. In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.
" --- from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriageI am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
You found a few exceptions to the rule, congratulations. That doesn't change the fact that the concept and spirit marriage has always and will always be between man and woman.
Then again, you HAVE just described civil unions.Last edited by The Demon; 08-05-2010, 12:01 PM.Greed is Good
Comment
-
I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
Dude thats like saying child marriages are ok since it was allowed in other ancient cultures and essentially doesnt belong to a particular "religion". Look it is a slippery slope when you afford EXTRA BENEFITS and protections to people based on sexual preference, I mean you could make a case for Polygamy based on your arguments. You guys gotta realize you cant just have "no moral laws".Comment
-
As I said above: "marriage" has had many incarnations throughout history, culture and civilization.
It continues to be "rewritten" as man evolves.
And it will continue to evolve as to and with in the acceptable norms of society as we know it today. If you want to call that "moral law" fine.Last edited by gumdrop; 08-05-2010, 12:24 PM.I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
You can continue to believe that it is a simple issue if you like, but the fact is that many gay activists were opposed to this lawsuit because they feared it would lose in the Supreme Court and therefore set back the cause of gay marriage for a long time. There are plenty of pro gay marriage people who are doubtful about the outcome in the Supreme Court.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/us...er=rss&emc=rss
Even some of those who applauded the opinion, however, said the path ahead for it was not clear or easy. Doug NeJaime, an associate professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, said that while he considered Judge Walker?s ruling ?a great opinion,? he was skeptical that the strategy behind it would survive through the federal courts. Despite Judge Walker?s efforts to set a factual foundation and the traditions of deference, Mr. NeJaime said, the Supreme Court is not completely constrained by lower court findings of fact.
?We?ve seen time and time again that the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants? with the factual record, and ?I don?t see five justices on the Supreme Court taking Judge Walker?s findings of fact to the place that he takes them.?
Professor NeJaime suggested the case might turn on the court?s traditional swing vote, Anthony M. Kennedy, who has shaped decisions that struck down laws that discriminated against gay men and lesbians. The rational basis test used by Judge Walker is in line with the standard used by Justice Kennedy in cases like Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state sodomy law. By structuring an opinion that allows the Court to use the lower level of scrutiny, Judge Walker ?is speaking to Justice Kennedy,? he said.
Professor Jesse H. Choper, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it was too soon to tell which way Justice Kennedy might come down on the issue of same-sex marriage. ?I have no way of predicting how he?d come down on this, and I don?t think he does, either, at this point.?
Ultimately, Professor NeJaime said, even the four more liberal justices on the Court might shy away from a sweeping decision that could overturn same-sex marriage bans across the country. ?The Supreme Court rarely likes to get too far ahead of things,? he said.бабки, шлюхи, силаComment
-
Source "The status of same-sex marriage in California is unique among the fifty U.S. states, in that the state formerly granted marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but then no longer did. The period of granting such licenses began on June 16, 2008, due to a ruling by the Supreme Court of California based on an equal protection argument and ended November 5, 2008, due to the passage of Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution that limited marriages to those between one man and one woman. Marriages granted by any civil entity, foreign or otherwise, anytime before the passage of Proposition 8 remain legally recognized and retain full state-level marriage rights. Also, subsequent state legislation established that any same-sex marriages granted by other jurisdictions after the passage of Proposition 8 retain the state rights that come with marriage, except for the legal term "marriage" itself."
No mater what, gay marriage will be allowed at some point across the entire Country. If this doesn't do it, something else will, just give it time.
~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
Fuck it! Just Fuck it!Comment
-
Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants
think about thatComment
-
That is interesting because even prominent gay rights activist groups don't believe the outcome in the Supreme Court is guaranteed........ perhaps they understand the issues involved a bit better than you?
In regards to the filing of the current lawsuit against Prop 8.......
Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and the National Center for Lesbian Rights, who originally won same-sex marriage in California in In re Marriage Cases and defended it in Strauss v. Horton, opposed the move because they felt that a federal challenge could potentially do more harm than good at the present time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_v._Schwarzeneggerбабки, шлюхи, силаComment
-
That's a pretty wild assumption don't you think? How do you know I'm not a closet twink?
wait... this is getting out of hand here.SIG TOO BIGComment
-
It's evolving without question... across the World and in America. 60 years ago without question it wouldn't have been a 50/50 split and today it is. Something is changing.
"The movement to obtain marriage rights and benefits for same-sex couples in the United States began in the early 1970s. The issue became even more prominent in U.S. politics in the mid-1990s with a public backlash toward the idea evidenced by Congress' passage of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. However, over the 2000s, public support for its legalization have grown considerably.[8] An April 30, 2009 ABC News/Washington Post poll found support for allowing same sex couples to marry in the United States ahead of opposition to it for the first time, with support at 49% and opposition at 46% while those with no opinion on the matter was at 5%. In addition, 53% believe that gay marriages performed in other states should be legal in their states.[9] New England has since became the center of an organized push to legalize same-sex marriage in the U.S., with four of the six states comprising that region granting same-sex couples the legal right to marry. The issue remains politically divisive in the United States."
SourceLast edited by TheDoc; 08-05-2010, 01:33 PM. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
Judicial activism and liberal mass media propaganda is working at full tilt, unfortunately for them I think the "general public" is waking up and getting tired of the minorities socialist agenda. You will see the backlash in November this year and then again when Obama loses in 2012.Comment
-
Congratulations.
My son went to see the gay pride parade in Vancouver with some girls on sunday. He's 17. Told me he saw a naked old man walking around holding a globe in front of his peepee. And alot of topless girls. Topless in public for women is actually legal in Vancouver.
Sabby
Last edited by Sabby; 08-05-2010, 01:52 PM.Fuck offComment
-
Congrats, but I am staying far from marriage, ;PComment
-
-
Evolving isn't just about time, it's about changing with time, the amount of time is not relevant in this situation.
This is from a religious type of site, full of polls... http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm from sources like Gallup and many other major ones. Good luck trying to discredit the truth.
Pretty clear that just in 10 years it has went from opposed to just about even, and that's still a few years back. It's even less opposed today.Last edited by TheDoc; 08-05-2010, 02:05 PM. ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
supreme court will uphold. guaranteed.Comment
-
For those interested in reading legal analysis of the decision that does not devolve into partisan mudslinging, I recommend this post from University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.
In case these facts matter to you, Carpenter is gay, an advocate of gay marriage.... and not at all confident that the decision will survive on appeal.
The punchline of his post:
Only time will tell what the higher courts do with this decision, naturally... but Carpenter's predictions in this area (in which he is both an expert who evinces admirable objectivity and an advocate with every reason to give into subjective bias) have been pretty spot on, IME.The decision, as I read it, relies directly or indirectly upon every prominent constitutional argument for SSM. One could say this is a strength of the decision. If a higher court doesn?t like one reason, it might accept another. But it is also a weakness of the decision, from a gay-rights litigation perspective, since it invites a higher court to address them all if it decides to reverse the result. A sweeping victory becomes a sweeping defeat.Q. BoyerComment
-
poop weiner
TRUMP 2026 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law!
DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.comComment
-
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/beh...n_gay_mar.html
"Views on gay marriage are little changed since Post-ABC polling last touched on the topic, in April 2009. Then, 49 percent said they thought it should be legal, 46 percent illegal. In that poll, a wording experiment found little difference between support for legal marriages of "gay and lesbian couples and for those among "homosexual couples." (A CBS News/New York Times survey released yesterday conducted a similar experiment and found the wording did make a difference in their results.)"
The ABC Poll: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...43-503544.html
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalert...t-for-sam.html
The PPIC poll found that support for gay marriage has reached 50 percent for the first time since the San Francisco-based think tank began polling on the issue in 2000. A sharp partisan division remains, with 64 percent of Democrats supporting same-sex marriage rights, while 67 percent of Republicans are opposed. However, 55 percent of independents are in favor.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-07-2...ity-california
"A Field Poll scheduled to be released today shows little has changed since May 2008, when 51 percent of voters said they supported same-sex marriage...."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/15/135522/956
A lot of polls from 2008, showing the split now...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/am...-slightly.aspx
As we can see from the Gallup Poll Graph, support is going up, opposition is going down.
This is boring now... ~TheDoc - ICQ7765825
It's all disambiguationComment
-
-
The USA government only recognizes that marriage is between a man and a woman, not based on religious reasons but NATURAL ones.Comment
-
so what you're saying is........taking applications now, hot bitches only need apply congratulations to you and all my gays everywhere 
Julie Larson
julie {at} juicyads.com
skype: imortylpussycat
Comment
-
ROFL. So you're saying the only people that oppose it are "religists"? The rationalizations are getting more and more hilarious.Greed is GoodComment
-
Wrong.
Wikipedia:
But the bible thumpers had to push it, now it's been debunked, and is probably headed to the Supreme Court where it will be weighed against the US constitution. States may make their own laws, but they still can't violate that document. Ask Arizona.Marriage laws are established by individual states. In the United States, there are two methods of receiving state recognition of a marriage: common law marriage and obtaining a marriage license. Common-law marriage in the United States is no longer permitted in most states.
Though federal law does not regulate state marriage law, it does provide for rights and responsibilities of married couples that differ from those of unmarried couples. Reports published by the General Accounting Office in 1997 and 2004 identified over 1000 such laws.
Restrictions on marriage:
Same-sex marriage in the United States is currently legal in five states: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire. Laws vary because marriage laws are the purview of individual states. The social movement to obtain the right of same-sex couples to marry began in the early 1970s, and the issue became prominent in U.S. politics in the 1990s. Massachusetts has recognized same-sex marriage since 2004. Nine states and the District of Columbia offer same-sex legal unions that offer some or all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage."SIG TOO BIGComment
-
Greed is GoodComment
-
Hahahahha Amputate you continue to humor us with your rationalizations. It's the bible thumpers!!! ROFL
Too bad nothing's been debunked but the incompetent are allowed to dream
Greed is GoodComment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...stitutionality
Here you go amputate, since you like to argue against reality.
Section 3. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife
Damn, I didn't know it was a liberal democrat that passed this. How humorous
Greed is GoodComment
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...stitutionality
Here you go amputate, since you like to argue against reality.
[/b]
Damn, I didn't know it was a liberal democrat that passed this. How humorousSo then post-op transsexuals count too then yes?one man and one woman as husband and wifeSIG TOO BIGComment
-
Answer the question Einstein. If a person is born a male, has surgery to become a woman, is that person now entitled to marriage by your definition?SIG TOO BIGComment
-
I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
Last edited by gumdrop; 08-05-2010, 02:56 PM.I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
Demon,
If supposing you grant authority for transsexuals to marry, which gender are they allowed to marry? Can a post-op "new" female be allowed to marry a man or a woman?SIG TOO BIGComment
-
Actually I am thinking about growing a big dick... they are much more fun than analwarts...
Easy to photoshop and fake... Though im not afriad of a bit of plastic sergery.
Sabby
Fuck offComment
-
Since you're pretty much out of arguments and resorting to irrelevant misdirection, I'll humor myself by responding. I'm not on the supreme court so I don't know why you're asking me about what trannies are allowed to do. However, you're delving into spirit vs. letter of the law. From a purely legal perspective, if we were to follow the letter of the law, I suppose trannies could get married yes. However, the majority of the time the spirit of the law is followed so I don't think this would happen anytime soon.
Ahh ok so you don't actually have any proof, you just need someone to blame. Gotcha.Yeah well it's obvious isn't it? (Funny how we are discussing this issue on a porn forum)Greed is GoodComment
-
Interesting. So, how do we weed out the tranies so they don't violate the "spirit" of the law? Should we require medical records and a background check before allowing anyone to marry? Because some of those fags might squeak through. Would it make you more comfortable if some of the men wore dresses and wigs? We don't want you having nightmares about getting ass raped by the evil gays.SIG TOO BIGComment
-
I am NOT Godaddy! Most excellent Domains & Cheap Hosting
“Buy an iPad, kill a Chinaman” - Brendan O’NeillComment
-
Almost every big time talk show host is an Aquarius.
Except Dave and Conan.. they are Aries..
Sabby
Last edited by Sabby; 08-05-2010, 03:35 PM.Fuck offComment
Comment