Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,877 Year: 4,134/9,624 Month: 1,005/974 Week: 332/286 Day: 53/40 Hour: 4/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transexuals and Marriage: A Question
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 46 of 109 (320020)
06-10-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Faith
06-10-2006 3:41 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
quote:
It is idiotic to think marriage needs to be trashed to accommodate every such relationship.
Can you please list some specificexamples of marriage being "trashed" if gay people are permitted to marry?
You have made many shrill, yet vague, predictions of doom if gay people are allowed to marry, yet you have never had the balls to actually say what you think will befall the nation and the world should this come to pass.
So, tell us, Faith. What exactly do you see happening that will be the ruin of us all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 3:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 109 (320033)
06-10-2006 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
06-10-2006 3:34 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
WHY SHOULD TWO MEN HAVE ANY RIGHTS TOGETHER OVER AND ABOVE WHAT SINGLE MEN OR WOMEN HAVE JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ABERRATION?
Because there's two of them.
I mean, duh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 3:34 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 48 of 109 (320039)
06-10-2006 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
06-10-2006 3:36 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
Let laws be changed if necessary so that a person may have whomever they want with them in the hospital
Sure. The quickest, fastest way to do that is to allow homosexual couples to marry. And there's a bunch of other benefits, too. Rather than change 1000 laws, why not change just one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 3:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 49 of 109 (320068)
06-10-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by rgb
06-10-2006 3:13 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
I am not claiming such thing. I said that if you look at human history you'd see that for the most part marriage had always been purely for procreation reasons. In modern times, we've seen many changes in society that we didn't see before, but the word/concept of marriage remained the same. Gay marriage, for example, is an entirely new concept.
Throughout human history marriage between those of the same sex has been a normal part of the cultural and social institution of marriage. It is actually those of the Christian right who propose redefnining marriage to mean ONLY between a man and woman.
Same sex marriage is NOT a new concept. It's been around for thousands of years at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 3:13 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 5:48 PM DBlevins has replied
 Message 51 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 6:03 PM DBlevins has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 50 of 109 (320069)
06-10-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by DBlevins
06-10-2006 5:39 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
You keep claiming that same sex marriage has been known throughout history but what you offered for proof a while back for the most part showed "liaisons" and temporary connections, not marriage, and certainly very RARE occurrences, most culture-specific, in any case.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 5:39 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by nator, posted 06-10-2006 6:09 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 54 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 7:23 PM Faith has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 109 (320075)
06-10-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by DBlevins
06-10-2006 5:39 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
Even the ancient Greeks, as liberal as they were in regard to same sex relationships, only thought of marriage as a "thing" between people of opposite sex. Ancient Romans were another example.
Yes, throughout history same sex relationships had been very common, but they still thought of marriage as something between men and women.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 5:39 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 7:23 PM rgb has replied
 Message 56 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 7:33 PM rgb has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2198 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 52 of 109 (320079)
06-10-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-10-2006 5:48 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
quote:
You keep claiming that same sex marriage has been known throughout history but what you offered for proof a while back for the most part showed "liaisons" and temporary connections, not marriage, and certainly very RARE occurrences, most culture-specific, in any case.
Even if what you claim is true, are you then saying that no culture is ever allowed to change it's rules regarding marriage?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 5:48 PM Faith has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 53 of 109 (320142)
06-10-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by rgb
06-10-2006 6:03 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
Even the ancient Greeks, as liberal as they were in regard to same sex relationships, only thought of marriage as a "thing" between people of opposite sex.
Well, that's one culture that didn't have gay marriage. You've got about 1,000,000 more to go to substantiate that no culture had gay marriage.
Ancient Romans were another example.
That's two. 999,999 more to go. Better get crackin'!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 6:03 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 8:09 PM crashfrog has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 54 of 109 (320143)
06-10-2006 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-10-2006 5:48 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
You keep claiming that same sex marriage has been known throughout history but what you offered for proof a while back for the most part showed "liaisons" and temporary connections, not marriage, and certainly very RARE occurrences, most culture-specific, in any case.
No. You're wrong on all counts. I did provide evidence which you obviously didn't bother to read through. And it is obvious from the readings that homosexual marriage is not a RARE occurence, but is fundemental, universal, and historic. Here is another article in wikipedia which distinctly says "marriage" and not just unions. {ABE: The one I referenced before is at the end of this post}
Wikipedia
Of course, if you did a bit of research you would find that same-sex marriage exists and has existed throughout the world.
From the following website:
Same-sex MARRIAGE article
quote:
Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.
quote:
Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.
Article reference: Joseph M. Carrier and Stephen O. Murray, "Woman-woman marriage in Africa", Boy-wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities, ed. Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, p255-257
quote:
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa.
Article reference: Joseph M. Carrier and Stephen O. Murray, "Woman-woman marriage in Africa", Boy-wives and Female Husbands: Studies of African Homosexualities, ed. Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, p27
quote:
Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha).
Article reference: Roscoe, Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America, p140-141
quote:
Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong"...
Article reference: http://www.china-stemmata.com/CTFS/JLQ.htm
quote:
In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized.
Article reference: Bret Hinsch, Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China, p132
And if you have an desire to look further into the subject and educate yourself you might try the wikipedia article I referenced before (scroll down a bit to get to the meat of the issue: Wiki
Edited by DBlevins, : Added reference to previous article posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 5:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-10-2006 7:31 PM DBlevins has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 109 (320155)
06-10-2006 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by DBlevins
06-10-2006 7:23 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
I do not want to read through another "History of Sexuality" site. thanks anyway. You give no dates, no statistics, just a few anecdotal-type references to VERY FEW VERY MINOR small tribes without bothering with incidence or percentages, yet you are calling this some kind of big deal throughout history. You don't discuss cultural context, whether it's even about homosexuality -- I can't tell from the quotes you give. And I'm sure this comes from the pro-gay literature too. No, I will not research it. You've proved nothing and that's your job, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 7:23 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by ohnhai, posted 06-10-2006 10:11 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 109 by DBlevins, posted 06-12-2006 8:12 PM Faith has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3804 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 56 of 109 (320160)
06-10-2006 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by rgb
06-10-2006 6:03 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
See my reply to Faith:
here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 6:03 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 8:11 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 109 (320198)
06-10-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 7:23 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
crashfrog writes
quote:
That's two. 999,999 more to go. Better get crackin'!
Ok crashfrog, I give up. Now it's your turn to give the other 99999... example of cultures that accepted marriage between people of the same sex.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 7:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 8:11 PM rgb has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 109 (320203)
06-10-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by rgb
06-10-2006 8:09 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
Now it's your turn to give the other 99999... example of cultures that accepted marriage between people of the same sex.
Maybe you're not too clear on logic? To rebut that assertion that something never happens, all I need is 1 example. Luckily, DBlevins has already provided several.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 8:09 PM rgb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by rgb, posted 06-10-2006 8:15 PM crashfrog has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 109 (320204)
06-10-2006 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DBlevins
06-10-2006 7:33 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
See Faith's post right above yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DBlevins, posted 06-10-2006 7:33 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 109 (320210)
06-10-2006 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
06-10-2006 8:11 PM


Re: First Faith, now you, are ironic
crashfrog writes
quote:
Maybe you're not too clear on logic?
Maybe not, but please point out where I said same sex marriage had never happenned in history. If I did, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant to say that throughout human history the cultures that did not accept same sex marriage overwhelmingly outnumber those that did, and that's an understatement. The few examples of same sex marriage accepting societies were very small isolated cultures that's been extinct for a long time now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 8:11 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2006 8:31 PM rgb has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024