According to cnn.com: " Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. ".
Please G_d let this happen. Oh and bless me and protect me from your fanatics.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "swingchick20" correct me if i'm wrong but i thought the engagement ring is suppose to be worn on the outside protecting the wedding ring. :dunno:
Correct. The wedding ring is supposed to be worn closest to your heart (thus, on the inside). This picture appears to show the groom putting the ring on backwards. If the two rings aren't joined, sometimes grooms put the wedding ring on top during the wedding ceremony so the bride doesn't have to take off the engagement ring first, but she is supposed to swap their relative positions later. If they are a set like the one in this picture, though, there's no reason not to put it on the correct way.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Massachusetts might "allow" so-called "same sex marriages," but that doesn't mean they are going to happen any more than Massachusetts allowing dogs to give birth to monkeys means that that is going to happen. Marriage MEANS "a life-long commitment between a man and woman to love and care for each other." Now if gays want to make a life-long commitment to love and care for each other, fine. But it is not marriage.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Dan, i am so sorry you feel the way you do. when will you realize that marriage is a commitment of 2 adults that want to love each other for the rest of their lives. man to woman, woman to woman, or man to man. it's love. that's what is important. ignore the fact that it is "unnatural" :roll: what is more important is that now there can't be laws made to make the option of marriage illegal. the issue was for that the state to recognize the union and give those marriages the same perks that opposite sex ones have.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
What scares me is, if I understand the news correctly, is that Bush and supporters will make an attempt to amend the Constitution to defend the notion of marriage as between man and a woman exclusively.
Setting aside momentarily the notions of what true marriage is: What the hell does a political party that is philosophically opposed to government interference in private life doing when it wants to change the Constitution? The state should stay out of it entirely!
The government is being held hostage to right-wing religious extremists. The constitution was amended to give blacks and women full rights of participation. This idiotic notion of defining marriage is exactly the opposite: mean-spirited, reactionary, and outside the realm of what government should spend time worrying about. I hope that Log Cabin Republicans think twice before supporting Bush in the next election.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "TwirlGirl" If the two rings aren't joined, sometimes grooms put the wedding ring on top during the wedding ceremony so the bride doesn't have to take off the engagement ring first, ...
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "Dan2513" Massachusetts might "allow" so-called "same sex marriages," but that doesn't mean they are going to happen any more than Massachusetts allowing dogs to give birth to monkeys means that that is going to happen. Marriage MEANS "a life-long commitment between a man and woman to love and care for each other." Now if gays want to make a life-long commitment to love and care for each other, fine. But it is not marriage.
Originally posted Wednesday, February 4, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "Just Jesse"
Setting aside momentarily the notions of what true marriage is: What the hell does a political party that is philosophically opposed to government interference in private life doing when it wants to change the Constitution? The state should stay out of it entirely!
You didn't even get into the whole separation of church and state argument. I used to consider myself a conservative republican given that I strongly believe that government needs to butt out of most of the things it tends to involve itself in, and yet lately I find myself siding with a lot of the "liberal democrats". The irony would be laughable except for the fact that its really scary. In related news, I'm now putting together a line of fashionable tin-foil headwear.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
I'd like to point out that my illustration isn't about anal sex, its about blues dancing. But as with all things, anyone can choose to ascribe whatever they want to it.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Funny..Dan's profile interests include philosophy AND football....interesting. One a a pensive, SOLO, thought provoking interest and the other all men jamming and touching each other.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Among quakers, we don't use the word "marriage." Some gay people find the term as off-putting as straight people. We usually celebrate "commitment ceremonies."
One could argue, from the Biblical tradition, that a "marraige" that does not produce children is not a true marraige, since that is the purpose of marraige to procreate.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Oh Rik, put the Bible down, you might strain something.
Besides, you might do better with a dictionary: "One could argue, from the Biblical tradition, that a "marraige" that does not produce children is not a true marraige, since that is the purpose of marraige to procreate."
It's marriage. :P
Even in the Biblical days, plenty of folks were infertile due to all sorts of reason: disease, trauma, congenital defect...they weren't truly married in the Lordy's eyes!?!
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "swingchick20" Dan, i am so sorry you feel the way you do. when will you realize that marriage is a commitment of 2 adults that want to love each other for the rest of their lives. man to woman, woman to woman, or man to man.
I won't, because that's not what marriage is. Humans have lived on this planet for a long time and only in the past few years has anyone come up with the idea that a man can marry another man.
Quoted from "swingchick20" it's love. that's what is important. ignore the fact that it is "unnatural" :roll: what is more important is that now there can't be laws made to make the option of marriage illegal. the issue was for that the state to recognize the union and give those marriages the same perks that opposite sex ones have.
A state can recognize a union between people of the same sex and give them all of the state benefits of marriage without having to make the error of calling that union "marriage."
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quote I won't, because that's not what marriage is. Humans have lived on this planet for a long time and only in the past few years has anyone come up with the idea that a man can marry another man.
And only in the past few centuries has the Christian church even had a marriage ceremony.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "Effervescent" Even in the Biblical days, plenty of folks were infertile due to all sorts of reason: disease, trauma, congenital defect...they weren't truly married in the Lordy's eyes!?!
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think you would be allowed to get married if the woman could not bear children. And the man presumably could leave the woman because of this to find a more "suitable" mate who could produce offspring.
I'm not agreeing with this, I'm just reporting on the actual beliefs at the time.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
I don't understand the "well, let them live a committed life with each other, but don't call it marriage" sentiment. How (besides the obvious, crude responses) is a gay marriage any different than a heterosexual one? It is two people who love each other promising to do so til death do they part. Why should anyone, especially the federal government, have the right to take that away from someone?
I say ban adulterers from getting married again, ban rapists and pedophiles from getting married, but what have gay people ever done to deserve denying them the right to love?
.............Realizing I need to climb down off my soapbox
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Yeah I have always felt the problems lie within the definitions and the religion/state issues.
One main issue is that people feel a personal connection with the word "marriage".
For extreme conservatives it very much relates to a woman and man with the idea of having children and doing it all the "old fashioned way". For more liberal people, making it legal for all humans would mean something about respect and treating everyone equal. I see both sides.
Some gay people would like to use the term "marriage" because allowing them to means they're not weird or wrong and they're just like all the straight people out there. It's not cool to make someone feel outside the norm or "othered".
But if you're a religious christian and believe marriage means only one thing then of course you'd be upset if someone came along and wanted to change your tradition.
It's a loaded issue for sure.
The church/state thing is the one the government should be FORCED to focus on. We should not be allowed to descriminate and tell certain unions they cannot have certain benefits. As far as I'm concerned, all benefits allotted to "marriage" should be taken away. And instead there should be benefits associated with "civil unions" or some other more open term. It could include all kids of unions and should require a license and formal submission with the government, etc. Get the government and benefits issues OUT of "marriage".
THEN, we could allow the term "marriage" to be used by whoever wants it in whatever way they want it. A man and a woman could go get "married" in a church.
A man and a man could go get "married" or have a "commitment ceremony" or whatever they want in whatever place they feel is important to them.
It would be a cultural and religious term, not a legal one. As it never should have been in the first place.
And everyone could shut the f ck up and get on with their PERSONAL LIVES.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "Slick Rik" And the man presumably could leave the woman because of this to find a more "suitable" mate who could produce offspring.
I'm not agreeing with this, I'm just reporting on the actual beliefs at the time.
Just wanna chime in and say that according to strict orthodox Jewish believes if a marriage doesn t provide children with in 10 years, the couple needs to get divorced.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "mity" Just wanna chime in and say that according to strict orthodox Jewish believes if a marriage doesn t provide children with in 10 years, the couple needs to get divorced.
There is a very beautiful and sad film from Israel called Kodesh about that very theme.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "mouth" As far as I'm concerned, all benefits allotted to "marriage" should be taken away. And instead there should be benefits associated with "civil unions" or some other more open term. It could include all kids of unions and should require a license and formal submission with the government, etc. Get the government and benefits issues OUT of "marriage".
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Various faiths and cultural traditions have differing practices and beliefs pertaining to marriage. I.e. many orthodox religions only allow you to marry someone of the same faith. In some cultures, marriages are arranged between two families, or by a matchmaker. The government typically has no business in relation to these customs.
Where the government is involved is in the realm of legal rights and responsibilities. I.e.
<
ul>
[ :4a222aee47]taxation
[ :4a222aee47]property rights and inheritance
[ :4a222aee47]legal guardianship and child custody
[ :4a222aee47]insurance protection
[ :4a222aee47]divorce proceedings
[/list:u:4a222aee47]It is in these areas where two people who have decided to form a civic union should be accorded equal rights and protections, irregardless of their gender.
Originally posted Thursday, February 5, 2004 (8 years ago)
Quoted from "Slick Rik" It is in these areas where two people who have decided to form a civic union should be accorded equal rights and protections, irregardless of their gender.
Why only two? Previously, I was joking, but now that I think about, in order to truly allow a separation of church and state, shouldn't the government consider all unions regardless of gender and number? I was watching Taboo the National Geographic Channel this weekend and the topic was that of Family. The final segment of the show featured a region in India near Nepal whose people practiced polyandry (multiple husbands and one wife). Are such unions to be discriminated against as well?
Listen 24 hours a day! Weekly updated shows
Everyone is gay
According to cnn.com: " Massachusetts' highest court reiterated today that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would be constitutional. The ruling sets the stage for Massachusetts to become the first state in the nation to allow same-sex marriages. ".
Please G_d let this happen. Oh and bless me and protect me from your fanatics.
Amen,
-Eff
Yehoodi Featured Topics
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 58 Next > (1723 items total, 30 per page)
Eff-
Will you marry me?
The velocity of Spanish is that many tables do not have sadness...
It's not big enough.
And neither is the ring.
-Eff
correct me if i'm wrong but i thought the engagement ring is suppose to be worn on the outside protecting the wedding ring. :dunno:
Correct. The wedding ring is supposed to be worn closest to your heart (thus, on the inside). This picture appears to show the groom putting the ring on backwards. If the two rings aren't joined, sometimes grooms put the wedding ring on top during the wedding ceremony so the bride doesn't have to take off the engagement ring first, but she is supposed to swap their relative positions later. If they are a set like the one in this picture, though, there's no reason not to put it on the correct way.
Massachusetts might "allow" so-called "same sex marriages," but that doesn't mean they are going to happen any more than Massachusetts allowing dogs to give birth to monkeys means that that is going to happen. Marriage MEANS "a life-long commitment between a man and woman to love and care for each other." Now if gays want to make a life-long commitment to love and care for each other, fine. But it is not marriage.
Dan, i am so sorry you feel the way you do. when will you realize that marriage is a commitment of 2 adults that want to love each other for the rest of their lives. man to woman, woman to woman, or man to man. it's love. that's what is important. ignore the fact that it is "unnatural" :roll: what is more important is that now there can't be laws made to make the option of marriage illegal. the issue was for that the state to recognize the union and give those marriages the same perks that opposite sex ones have.
What scares me is, if I understand the news correctly, is that Bush and supporters will make an attempt to amend the Constitution to defend the notion of marriage as between man and a woman exclusively.
Setting aside momentarily the notions of what true marriage is: What the hell does a political party that is philosophically opposed to government interference in private life doing when it wants to change the Constitution? The state should stay out of it entirely!
The government is being held hostage to right-wing religious extremists. The constitution was amended to give blacks and women full rights of participation. This idiotic notion of defining marriage is exactly the opposite: mean-spirited, reactionary, and outside the realm of what government should spend time worrying about. I hope that Log Cabin Republicans think twice before supporting Bush in the next election.
On top of what? :spineyes:
Dan,
You keep these threads interesting!
But the winds of change, they are a blowin'...
-Eff
Dude did you take a strange pill today?
You didn't even get into the whole separation of church and state argument. I used to consider myself a conservative republican given that I strongly believe that government needs to butt out of most of the things it tends to involve itself in, and yet lately I find myself siding with a lot of the "liberal democrats". The irony would be laughable except for the fact that its really scary. In related news, I'm now putting together a line of fashionable tin-foil headwear.
KS just illustrated my old point exactly w/that .gif. The whole point of anal sex is so you can both watch tv at the same time! 8)
I'd like to point out that my illustration isn't about anal sex, its about blues dancing. But as with all things, anyone can choose to ascribe whatever they want to it.
Doggie Style Dancing, Butt Blues Dancing....he said....she said...lol! 8)
Funny..Dan's profile interests include philosophy AND football....interesting. One a a pensive, SOLO, thought provoking interest and the other all men jamming and touching each other.
Among quakers, we don't use the word "marriage." Some gay people find the term as off-putting as straight people. We usually celebrate "commitment ceremonies."
One could argue, from the Biblical tradition, that a "marraige" that does not produce children is not a true marraige, since that is the purpose of marraige to procreate.
Why It Took Me 13 Years to Learn the Big Apple • My hiphop crew Freeplay performing at the Dance-a-Rama (video).
Oh Rik, put the Bible down, you might strain something.
Besides, you might do better with a dictionary: "One could argue, from the Biblical tradition, that a "marraige" that does not produce children is not a true marraige, since that is the purpose of marraige to procreate."
It's marriage. :P
Even in the Biblical days, plenty of folks were infertile due to all sorts of reason: disease, trauma, congenital defect...they weren't truly married in the Lordy's eyes!?!
Heavens!
-Eff
I won't, because that's not what marriage is. Humans have lived on this planet for a long time and only in the past few years has anyone come up with the idea that a man can marry another man.
A state can recognize a union between people of the same sex and give them all of the state benefits of marriage without having to make the error of calling that union "marriage."
And only in the past few centuries has the Christian church even had a marriage ceremony.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think you would be allowed to get married if the woman could not bear children. And the man presumably could leave the woman because of this to find a more "suitable" mate who could produce offspring.
I'm not agreeing with this, I'm just reporting on the actual beliefs at the time.
Why It Took Me 13 Years to Learn the Big Apple • My hiphop crew Freeplay performing at the Dance-a-Rama (video).
I don't understand the "well, let them live a committed life with each other, but don't call it marriage" sentiment. How (besides the obvious, crude responses) is a gay marriage any different than a heterosexual one? It is two people who love each other promising to do so til death do they part. Why should anyone, especially the federal government, have the right to take that away from someone?
I say ban adulterers from getting married again, ban rapists and pedophiles from getting married, but what have gay people ever done to deserve denying them the right to love?
.............Realizing I need to climb down off my soapbox
Yeah I have always felt the problems lie within the definitions and the religion/state issues.
One main issue is that people feel a personal connection with the word "marriage". For extreme conservatives it very much relates to a woman and man with the idea of having children and doing it all the "old fashioned way". For more liberal people, making it legal for all humans would mean something about respect and treating everyone equal. I see both sides. Some gay people would like to use the term "marriage" because allowing them to means they're not weird or wrong and they're just like all the straight people out there. It's not cool to make someone feel outside the norm or "othered". But if you're a religious christian and believe marriage means only one thing then of course you'd be upset if someone came along and wanted to change your tradition.
It's a loaded issue for sure.
The church/state thing is the one the government should be FORCED to focus on. We should not be allowed to descriminate and tell certain unions they cannot have certain benefits. As far as I'm concerned, all benefits allotted to "marriage" should be taken away. And instead there should be benefits associated with "civil unions" or some other more open term. It could include all kids of unions and should require a license and formal submission with the government, etc. Get the government and benefits issues OUT of "marriage".
THEN, we could allow the term "marriage" to be used by whoever wants it in whatever way they want it. A man and a woman could go get "married" in a church. A man and a man could go get "married" or have a "commitment ceremony" or whatever they want in whatever place they feel is important to them.
It would be a cultural and religious term, not a legal one. As it never should have been in the first place.
And everyone could shut the f ck up and get on with their PERSONAL LIVES.
The End
:lol: How about we have a committment cermony for everyone but only once they agree to rear a child together can it be called marriage.
Just wanna chime in and say that according to strict orthodox Jewish believes if a marriage doesn t provide children with in 10 years, the couple needs to get divorced.
There is a very beautiful and sad film from Israel called Kodesh about that very theme.
Sweet! Would that make polygamy legal?
My only question is, when will I be allowed to marry Biggles?
Various faiths and cultural traditions have differing practices and beliefs pertaining to marriage. I.e. many orthodox religions only allow you to marry someone of the same faith. In some cultures, marriages are arranged between two families, or by a matchmaker. The government typically has no business in relation to these customs.
Where the government is involved is in the realm of legal rights and responsibilities. I.e.
<
ul> [ :4a222aee47]taxation [ :4a222aee47]property rights and inheritance [ :4a222aee47]legal guardianship and child custody [ :4a222aee47]insurance protection [ :4a222aee47]divorce proceedings [/list:u:4a222aee47]It is in these areas where two people who have decided to form a civic union should be accorded equal rights and protections, irregardless of their gender.
Why It Took Me 13 Years to Learn the Big Apple • My hiphop crew Freeplay performing at the Dance-a-Rama (video).
Oh, sorry. I thought this thread was called "Everyone is gray".
Back to your regularly scheduled small-minded postings by Dan2513!
We are the keepers of Funny, the Judges, the Whisperers. We are Superior Naysayers And Rebukers of Knavery. We are SNARK. - Boosh!
Why only two? Previously, I was joking, but now that I think about, in order to truly allow a separation of church and state, shouldn't the government consider all unions regardless of gender and number? I was watching Taboo the National Geographic Channel this weekend and the topic was that of Family. The final segment of the show featured a region in India near Nepal whose people practiced polyandry (multiple husbands and one wife). Are such unions to be discriminated against as well?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0126polygamy-challenge-ON.html
Page(s): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57 58 Next > (1723 items total, 30 per page)
BBCode is no longer supported. Use Markdown instead: