Page 33 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 882

Thread: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

  1. #321
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    All it would take is a little piece of legislation to change the term marriage to civil union throughout the law and it's done! No benefits have to change. The only thing changing is how the government states it. If you want Holy Matrimony, give your vows according to your faith. If your idea of marriage is something else call it whatever you want. But no one in government will any longer be able to redefine marriage for another.
    But why bother? It is still the same thing. It would be completely pointless to change the name of marriage to civil unions just because some are "uncomfortable" with same sex couples calling themselves "married", when they would be doing that even if it were called "civil unions" legally. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in changing marriage to be named something else.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  2. #322
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,842

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    But why bother? It is still the same thing. It would be completely pointless to change the name of marriage to civil unions just because some are "uncomfortable" with same sex couples calling themselves "married", when they would be doing that even if it were called "civil unions" legally. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in changing marriage to be named something else.
    Why bother? because you and others have decided that marriage needed to be redefined even though a good portion of the people do not agree with your new definition. By the government only dealing in civil unions, the individual can define marriage as he she sees fit. The only purpose the government needs is some status of your union for legal purposes and a civil union would be quite sufficient.

  3. #323
    Educator Amandi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Delaware
    Last Seen
    06-19-15 @ 02:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    905
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    All it would take is a little piece of legislation to change the term marriage to civil union throughout the law and it's done! No benefits have to change. The only thing changing is how the government states it. If you want Holy Matrimony, give your vows according to your faith. If your idea of marriage is something else call it whatever you want. But no one in government will any longer be able to redefine marriage for another.
    This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.

  4. #324
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Why bother? because you and others have decided that marriage needed to be redefined even though a good portion of the people do not agree with your new definition. By the government only dealing in civil unions, the individual can define marriage as he she sees fit. The only purpose the government needs is some status of your union for legal purposes and a civil union would be quite sufficient.
    No. I know that same sex couples easily fit into my personal definition of marriage. And legally, they fit into the civil definition of marriage as well. It is only yours and others' definitions of marriage that they do not fit into, and that is nothing but a personal definition that should not in anyway dictate our laws or changes to names of licenses/unions we have. You do not own the sole definition to marriage. Nor do religions.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #325
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,842

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No. I know that same sex couples easily fit into my personal definition of marriage. And legally, they fit into the civil definition of marriage as well. It is only yours and others' definitions of marriage that they do not fit into, and that is nothing but a personal definition that should not in anyway dictate our laws or changes to names of licenses/unions we have. You do not own the sole definition to marriage. Nor do religions.
    And according to half the population in this country you don't own the definition to marriage for sure. The traditional one has been around for thousands of years. How old is your definition?

  6. #326
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    And according to half the population in this country you don't own the definition to marriage for sure. The traditional one has been around for thousands of years. How old is your definition?
    The age of a definition doesn't have any bearing on this. It simply doesn't matter how old the definition is. It is a personal definition.

    And half of this country has a definition, that when used within our laws, violate the major law of our land, the US Constitution. So they may keep their personal definition for them, but you nor they can force everyone else to abide or be limited by it.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  7. #327
    cynical class clown
    Luftwaffe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Last Seen
    11-18-17 @ 10:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    10,499

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    The Romans explicitly forbid Gay marriage.

    It was against their laws and punishable by death.

    Were there homosexuals and Pedophiles in Rome ? Sure, just like there are today everywhere.

    The fact is it was written into their laws that governed their Society that marriage was between a man and a woman.

    Try finding sources other than Wiki time.

    Any clown can post crap on Wiki
    I never said anything about gay marriage in Ancient Rome, I said homosexua SEX was legal in Ancient Rome. Never said anything about marriage. The whole purpose was to point that in terms of sexuality the world today and in the near past had shied away from anything homosexual whereas in the present we're starting to get more comfortable with homosexuality just like how the Ancient Romans had no issue with homosexuality.

    Gay sex =/= Gay marriage

    Homosexuality in Antiquity.: iCONN OneSearch for Colleges & Universities

    Unfortunately this is the Connecticut search engine for academic sources, so I believe unless one lives in CT they cannot access it. However, it's a work titled "Homosexuality in Antiquity" and I'll give some quotes from it.

    "Homoerotic behavior was an accepted part of
    every ancient culture.*" -the very first sentence of the work

    "In Egypt, Persia, the
    Orient, Asia, Africa, Western Europe, the Mediterranean,
    and pre-Columbian America, homosexual behavior was
    common, and there is no evidence that any ancient society
    ever punished anyone for sexual variance." -Page 1

    "For Greek and Roman male citizens, gay affairs were
    considered an accepted and expected aspect of civilized life." -Page 2

    "But with the advent of repressive
    Christianity, sexual attitudes did an about-face, and the taboo
    against homosexuality extended its way along the shores of
    the blue Mediterranean." -page 3

    It appears Rome was rather open to homosexuality, homosexual marriage rites were not explicitly banned until the advent of REPRESSIVE CHRISTIANITY. They were not officially recognized by Roman Law but they weren't prohibited.

    It's all the fault of Christianity, besides, once Christianity became the state religion Rome was already on the decline, in fact, West Rome vanished to leave only the Byzantine Empire, Christianity was hardly the history of Rome.

    Alright, so all the **** you posted was not only FALSE, but you didn't even cite anything. Now since I was called upon to give an academic source I went on to Connecticut's search engine and found an academically acceptable source that specifically backed up my claim that the Romans had no issue with homosexuality and in fact...

    "Many Greek philosophers extolled male love on the
    ground that it was nobler, purer, and closer to the gods than
    relations with women, the weaker and less clean vessels." -page 2

    The Roman's highly esteemed Greek contemporaries even viewed it as a purer relationship than man and woman relationships.
    -----MOS 19D = cavalry scout = best damn MOS there is

  8. #328
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,842

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    The age of a definition doesn't have any bearing on this. It simply doesn't matter how old the definition is. It is a personal definition.

    And half of this country has a definition, that when used within our laws, violate the major law of our land, the US Constitution. So they may keep their personal definition for them, but you nor they can force everyone else to abide or be limited by it.
    Well thank you for making my case that government need not define marriage. Civil unions for all is as far as they should be involved.

  9. #329
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Amandi View Post
    This would be the best option but people want government in marriage for some reason.
    Please tell me exactly how changing the word "marriage" within our laws to "civil union" is actually the best option. How does that alleviate any problems? You will simply be ticking off a different set of people. It will not in anyway change anything else. It won't make marriage any less part of government (only the name will now officially be "civil union"). It won't save anyone any money. In fact, it will cost at least a little bit of money to implement. Not to mention, such a step will be challenged in court. More money wasted.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  10. #330
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Well thank you for making my case that government need not define marriage. Civil unions for all is as far as they should be involved.
    Then we would be discussing how "civil unions" should be defined. You are just pushing the issue to a different word. It is mere semantics and it doesn't actually solve anything.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 33 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •