America is a Democracy so maybe you should hold off!?

and actually dropping the word marriage altogether OR allowing the word to be used across the board for the union of two people suits me fine.....actually just everyone shutting the hell up about it is what would really suit best...the only time I think about it is when some "decent" person or politician mentions it....think if everyone took all the energy being used to address this non issue and applied it to giving just one person a hand up (not out) to become happier, more informed and more productive what could be accomplished. Of course that would be one less group for the "Good Christian Right" to feel superior too, and that wouldn't do.

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

You are telling Catholics that they must believe something else now because the gays need to have special rights.

McGentrix wrote:

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

Only if the right to marry is included.

Quote:

You are telling Catholics that they must believe something else now because the gays need to have special rights.

Nobody is doing this, if Catholics can't get their heads around gays marrying and feel compelled to change their beliefs that is their problem.

Furthermore, having the right to marry would equalize and not grant "special rights".

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

Quote:

and actually dropping the word marriage altogether OR allowing the word to be used across the board for the union of two people suits me fine.....actually just everyone shutting the hell up about it is what would really suit best...the only time I think about it is when some "decent" person or politician mentions it....think if everyone took all the energy being used to address this non issue and applied it to giving just one person a hand up (not out) to become happier, more informed and more productive what could be accomplished. Of course that would be one less group for the "Good Christian Right" to feel superior too, and that wouldn't do.

Can I get an AMEN!

By granting homosexuals marriage, they are forcing Catholics to recognize an affront to their religion.

Redheat wrote:

Quote:

and actually dropping the word marriage altogether OR allowing the word to be used across the board for the union of two people suits me fine.....actually just everyone shutting the hell up about it is what would really suit best...the only time I think about it is when some "decent" person or politician mentions it....think if everyone took all the energy being used to address this non issue and applied it to giving just one person a hand up (not out) to become happier, more informed and more productive what could be accomplished. Of course that would be one less group for the "Good Christian Right" to feel superior too, and that wouldn't do.

Can I get an AMEN!

AMEN! "Marriage" is just a word, and today the legal significance of the word -- as housing or describing the place of legal sexual expression, shared property, and obligations for the care of children of a union-- is much reduced from what it once was, regardless of who uses it.

Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons.

Some marriages were by proxy, some involved a dowry (bride's family giving money or presents to the groom or his family), some required a bride price (the groom or his family giving money or a present to the bride's family), few had any sort of courtship or dating, but most had traditions.

For most of mankind's "civilized" history, a woman was considered a possession of first her father and then her lawful husband. She had little voice in where they lived, what her husband did and her own duties. She (post-Christianity) must devote herself to her husband, family and faith. Aside from that, her time was her own.

There were exceptions. Many countries, prior to Christianity or missionary outreach, believed the women to be the spiritual advisors, warriors on equal footing and often times judge and jury. Women's councils were commonplace, for everything from healing and midwifery to dream interpretation for the community.

The ancient world had practices that set women up as trophies of war, competition and feats of strength or bravery. Like a gold statue, a chariot, a horse, farmland or other prize, officers and victors were awarded wives into the bargain. Armies would often return home with women as booty from a raid or battle won. These women were either enslaved or married off to the soldier who brought her home.

Monogamous marriages rose to their peak during the Victorian period in British history. The Puritans moved marriage to a point where love counted and delighting in the state of marriage became commonplace, yet extremely committed. The Victorian period dragged marriage into the closet. Sex was something embarrassing and improper with a quiet understanding that married couples engaged in marital relations, without pleasure and as duty and God dictated.

In Homeric epic, a man could also "marry" a girl by winning her in a competition or by stealing her as booty. The Greek heroes left Troy with Trojan women as their "prizes." There was no "polygamy"; instead, a husband might have a wife and concubine, as seen frequently in ancient works about the Homeric heroes. If the wife gave her consent, the children of the concubine could be appointed as heirs. Yet, society demanded that a woman be faithful to her husband, begetting legitimate children.

One compelling motivation for marriage was the political alliance between noble families that the marriage would establish. Gradually, however, money replaced birth as a conduit to political influence, and marriages were consequently not as necessary for establishing political alliances.

Examples of matriarchal clans were widespread throughout the world, persisting into modern times. Many of the North American indigenous tribes were matriarchal. Among the Iroquois, the women only tilled the soil (with primitive hoes). They controlled the food supply, cooked the food, tended the children and made the clothing for the tribe. The men helped agriculturally only by clearing new ground. They also hunted, fished, made weapons and went to war. Marriages were generally arranged by the mothers and chief women. The husband only visited his wife's home (lodge or long house) occasionally. He was obligated to bring game or fish, and if he did not, she could divorce him. Married couples had the right to divorce whenever they wished to. Generally, if they had children, this was discouraged by the tribe. The women also dominated the ruling council. The women decided on war and peace and the disposition of prisoners. Inheritances were strictly passed from women to their children.

Other North American indigenous matriarchal tribes included the Wyandots, Narragansetts, Winnebegs, Creeks, Potawattamis and Pueblos. Some South American, Caribbean, East African, Southeast Asian and Pacific Island tribes had matriarchal organization as well.

Over time, men began to develop crafts and commerce with other tribes. Some were able to accumulate wealth. These men no longer had to serve to attain a wife. They could purchase one, or more than one if their means permitted. This is probably how matriarchy gave way to patriarchy. Men not only ruled women, but the wealthiest men ruled society- i.e. the State was established. These men-rulers also subjugated other men, who became their slaves. The "State," or ruling men, became concerned primarily with war: conquering other peoples, securing both their wealth and servitude. Over time, the development of international commerce and larger scale production of goods as well as the creation of currencies or money to replace barter was the early phase of capitalism. The family, which had been the unit of production of goods through hard labor and largely self-sufficient was replaced gradually by capital, i.e., money which was invested in resources and in slaves organized to produce products en masse and more cheaply. Wealth itself produced more wealth. The means of production were controlled not by those who produced the goods, but by those who controlled the wealth, resources and the labor of others. This state of affairs had a profound effect on the dissolution of the patriarchal family phase, particularly with the development of the Industrial Revolution.

McGentrix wrote:

Would you be satisfied with a civil union that granted the same effective rights to homosexuals as a marriage does to heterosexuals?

This question still stands for you to answer.

my point is they are Americans and are equal. They are making a big deal out of nothing. Really nothing.

Are they being throne (sic)in prison no. So what do they have to complain about but some Christians that hate them. we all have people that hate us so chill.

Facts are that the history of "marriage" is fraught with non romantic ideals. Most married for money , convenience and social standing. So I fail to understand how two people marrying from the same sex could in any way taint the "tradition" of marriage given it's salty past.