I can think of at least three or four times in the last 500 years where the "definition" of marriage changed either legally or socially in the western world alone.
Probably my favorite variant is traditional handfasting, where in some Gaelic cultures the marriage was not considered legit until the lady was pregnant.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...
Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...Follow
No True Gaelic accepted that definition!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
No True Gaelic accepted that definition!
The ones that wanted to have twenty children did.
No TRUE Gaelic did, and I say "Good day!"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Now, I don't know anything about government, but this whole states rights thing confuses me. How can states have laws that contradict each other, and even at the federal level? That seems to weaken the whole national identity and continuity. Like marijuana. How can it be legal in one state, then the Feds come in and bust legal operations? How does it make sense to make SSM legal in some states, but not recognized in others, or even nationally?
Federal law trumps state law which is why the feds can do drug busts even if the state doesn't actively arrest/prosecute for it. There is no overarching federal marriage law that defines it for the states (DOMA only applies to federal benefits and definitions) and states have been broadly left to define definitions, legal age, etc for themselves.
Well, yes I get how it works, but not why. Why give states rights if the Fed is just going to trump it? Why leave somethig as important as a couple's legal status variable and inconsistent? Why stay united if the states can't agree on such things?
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.
Quote:
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
I've still got mah Rebel flag around here somewhere... let's do this!
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.
We're not ALL backwards down here...
not all...
Before the ubiquitous instant communications of the 20th century, individual regions and states tended to develop much more unique personalities. For a country as large as the US (where a single state's individual counties are often larger than some individual nations in Europe), it made sense to allow locals to tweak laws to their own personal preferences.
These days, with the US a lot more homogeneous within regions than anyone wants to admit, it does seem a bit archaic.
Edited, May 10th 2012 1:54pm by catwho
These days, with the US a lot more homogeneous within regions than anyone wants to admit, it does seem a bit archaic.
Edited, May 10th 2012 1:54pm by catwho
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Not to be the pedant, but all of those marriages were between 1 man and 1 woman. The 1 man simply had several instances saved.
If that's what makes you feel better
Not my issue. The only thing that will make me feel better is if the government stays out of it altogether. Since that's not likely to happen because too many knob-gobblers think marriage could define them, I'll resolve myself to too much government in the bedroom, yet again.
Debalic wrote:
You know what, I think it's time for another civil war!
Careful what you wish for. Rednecks can shoot better than hippies.
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-sex marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-sex marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
IcookPizza wrote:
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
That's not what Tom Hanks taught me!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
cidbahamut wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It was funny today listening to Rush backpedal from "a man and a woman" to "males & females". Whatever could this mean for the well worn "...but then polygamy should be legal!!" argument if we've already decided that "males & females" is the 3,000 year old immutable definition of marriage?
I fail to see the moral argument against polygamy or same-sex marriage, especially from the Christian right. Their own Christ defines his relationship with the church as a marriage, and there are billions of women and men in there. So how can a man marrying many women, or men, be bad when t3h sabior does it?
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
I don't know, the jury is still out on Mary Magdalene.
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
See? SEEEEEE?????
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Wouldn't be a proper cult wandering in the wilderness, advertising miraculous healing powers, and living off of donations if there weren't at least a couple of orgies.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Atomicflea wrote:
That doesn't mean he hates gays. He may have just been a rich, entitled pathetic little asshole of a person.
Gotta give someone the benefit of the doubt, you know.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Gotta give someone the benefit of the doubt, you know.
Nadenu wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
I think it's time for the N-E states to grab the west-coast states and back slowly away.
We're not ALL backwards down here...
not all...
It's ok, we'll want to drop in on you for some mint-julep down-time in the Winter sun.
lolgaxe wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
I will never be able to think of communion the same way again.
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage
IcookPizza wrote:
I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
cidbahamut wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Because Jesus never put his **** in anyone?
I will never be able to think of communion the same way again.
Why do you think they serve wine also? They need to get you good and drunk!
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Recent Visitors: 477
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (477)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obama comes out in support of gay marriage...
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC