Gay Marriage - Legal Question

@spendius,

Five out of 50 states. You think that means that most Americans side with you. Sugar, how long has it been since Stonewall? You and your mates in your famous pub do know what Stonewall is?

The Stonewall Inn, Greenwich Village, NYC was raided by police in 1969. Afterwards, homosexuals staged a series of demonstrations there known as the Stonewall Riots and acknowledged as the beginning of the gay rights movement against some fairly draconian laws against homosexuality.

That was only 41 years ago. It is widely theorized that the social mixing of service men and women from all parts of the country during WWII brought homosexuality into the open. So, WWII for Americans was 1941-45, or twenty+ years before Stonewall.

You think that the 45 states that do not recognize same sex marriage is mark of agreement with you? Go back and reread what Monterey Jack told you. People are becoming more accepting of gays and of same sex marriage.

Denmark recognized a sort of gay partnership in 1989. The Netherlands recognized same sex marriage in 2001.

You are incapable of putting together a rational argument!

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I think the Reformation was a rather more complex affair that your glib ideas suggest.

SPendius, I feel sorry for you! I wasn't talking about the Reformation. Many of us who post here have been on this forum and on the defunct abuzz for many years. We have always observed that right wingers have trouble reading.

This is what you responded to:

Quote:

Originally, back when there was only one church in Europe before the Protestant Reformation, priests were reluctant to marry people and wedding services were performed at the church doors and not in the sanctuary.

You really have no idea what you are talking about or even how to talk or write.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

I bet you haven't even read the Malleus Maleficarum. Or Braudel. Or the analysis of the sub-text in Shakespeare I pointed you at.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Originally, back when there was only one church in Europe before the Protestant Reformation, priests were reluctant to marry people and wedding services were performed at the church doors and not in the sanctuary.

Friar Laurence---"Come, come with me, and we will make short work;
For, by your leaves, you shall not stay alone
Till holy church incorporate two in one."

Romeo and Juliet. Act II. Scene V.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I asked--

Quote:

Do you recognise polygamous marriage?

Do you or don't you recognise the right of polygamous people to call themselves "married" and be recognised as such officially?

Do you or don't you? You argument falls down if you don't and if you do why are you not campaigning for their rights as well as those of homosexuals?

Insulting me, and mentioning words like "Reformation" as if the mere expression of the word is to be taken as evidence for your expertise on the subject, are meaningless.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendi, This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

We have been discussing the rights of people who want to use the word "marriage" to officially designate a relationship between other that of one man and one woman.

So why won't you answer the question? Don't instruct me about what you think it has nothing to do with. That's saying you have won the argument because you have won the argument. You're supposed to grow out of that sort of thing by about 6.

If you want to use the word "marriage" for relationships which are other than that of one man and one woman why are you trying to put your own limits on its usage for your own ends.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Now we are in the legal issue of whether the state has a compelling interest to limit marriage to 2 people.

That is a different argument from a compelling interest to restrict it to people of the opposite sex.

In the case of polygamy, the courts have already ruled there is a compelling interest to not allow multiple marriages. There is nothing to discuss from a legal standpoint when it comes to allowing polygamy and this is about the "Legal Question."

0 Replies

spendius asks:

Quote:

Do you or don't you recognise the right of polygamous people to call themselves "married" and be recognised as such officially?

Do you or don't you? You argument falls down if you don't and if you do why are you not campaigning for their rights as well as those of homosexuals?

Since Spendius has repeatedly maintained that Christianity is the basis of Western civilization, and since the Bible is the basis of Christianity, and since many of the paragons of the Bible were polygamous, it kind of undermines his, and other's, contention that marriage is exclusively, and has always been, only between one man and one woman. Hoist on his own petard, he is.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I think you are conflating the OT with the NT. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ.

And it's beside the point. Obviously it's you who is hung up on yours.

Answer the question eh?

0 Replies

@spendius,

It's not me who wants to limit its use. It's mostly christians who wants to limit the use of the word marriage to a man and a woman.

Why are you so concerned when two people who love each other uses the word marriage? What limits am I supposed to be enforcing? Marriage is a human word; and humans should be able to use it in practice no matter what their sexual orientation.

I don't use marriage when it's about two animals or any other non-human animal species.

What's your problem?

Your statement

Quote:

...why are you trying to put your own limits on its usage for your own ends."

doesn't make any sense. CJ claims your use of the English language is impeccable, but I disagree 100%.

What ends?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Why do you want to use the word "marriage" for one specific variation to the tradition and not any others. There is more justification for its use in polygamous relationships than there is in same sex relationships.

In polygamous relationships we know who the wives or husbands are. Who is the wife in a same sex union? And is it justifiable to refer to that "wife" as "she". And must "she be obeyed" in such unions?

Are there to be no "wives" and "husbands" anymore just so the whims of a tiny minority of "in your face" militants say so.

You're off your ******* heads.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Or the analysis of the sub-text in Shakespeare I pointed you at.

What analysis of the subtext of Shakespeare are you talking about? That highly disregarded piece by Ted Hughes?

What has Shakespeare to do with my statement? NOTHING.

Was Shakespeare part of Medieval Europe?

I bet you never went to uni because you have trouble writing standard English sentences.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Friar Laurence has nothing to do with the way marriage was constructed during the Medieval period and more or less solidified by 1215, three and half centuries before Shakespeare was born.

Will you please stick to the subject at hand and stop making a fool of yourself?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

CI, how long has he been here and has he always been this irrational?

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

What analysis of the subtext of Shakespeare are you talking about? That highly disregarded piece by Ted Hughes?

Name me another book published in 1992 that trades in the second-hand book market at the prices that one does. I daresay you had never heard of it until I mentioned it. Just like you tried to pretend a familiarity with the "Reformation" by using the word, an old trick, now you are trying to pretend that you are familiar with Ted Hughes's magical masterpiece. And you're not in both cases. What you know about both could be written on the shell of a wren's egg with a heavy mud pump.

Quote:

What has Shakespeare to do with my statement? NOTHING.

I've forgotten what your statement was but if it's a drivellous as this one--

Quote:

I bet you never went to uni because you have trouble writing standard English sentences.

I can live with it.

Anyway--nobody has yet announced that they think polygamous unions later than first wives are entitled to claim "marriage" status. Which means that all your arguments are flat tyres. And the only thing to do with flat tyres is to change the wheel.

1 Reply

@spendius,

There aren't "any others." If you know of any, please enlighten us.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Polygamy. Either polygyny or polyandry.

There are no others for obvious reasons although I have read of cases where others might claim the right to declare themselves "married".

Declare yourself ci.

Can adultery exist in a homosexual union? If it can't, as a legal concept, then if "marriage" applies equally to man/woman as it does to same sex unions then it cant exist for either. If you say it can you have made a distinction between the two. On one side of that distinction you have "marriage" and on the other something else.

Have we any long term evidence of same sex unions to compare with opposite sex ones. Are you just playing around with novelties which have not been tested?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Just like you tried to pretend a familiarity with the "Reformation" by using the word, an old trick, now you are trying to pretend that you are familiar with Ted Hughes's magical masterpiece. And you're not in both cases. What you know about both could be written on the shell of a wren's egg with a heavy mud pump.

You goddamned pussy. You are trying to deflect the fact that you have lost by questioning the way I used the word Reformation, which was as a time marker, you flaming cloaca.

Listen, go look me up on the What Book are You Reading Now? thread and on my own thread entitled Shakespeare and stop trying to make us change our minds about the decision each of us reached long ago: that you are an empty tin can.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

pom, That's an insult to tin cans; tin cans have marketable value, whereas ...

1 Reply

Gay Marriage - Legal Question

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know