Marriage

About: cnn.com - bush, senators renew fight against gay marriage - jun 5, 2006

But of course they also forgot MATT-22, 24-30 (mostly 30). This is from CNN, but their follow on story didn't have this wonderful picture.  I wonder why the separation of church & state isn't clear here. Marriage is either a state affair or a church affair isn't it ?  Lets say for the sake of argument it is both.  While it is a state affair it can have nothing to do with the church & visa-versa!

I say let gays have Marriage & suffer like the rest of us!

As long as it looks like forbidden fruit it seems exciting - take a look at it when it's not. 

Tags

  1. gay marriage
  2. hetero marriage
  3. marriage
  4. rational
  5. rational inquiry

Comments


Mark de LA says
Hmmm... maybe the package he was referring to was your backpack 


Mark de LA says
I agree! Gay people should be able to marry & see how gay they are after a year or two! (see gay etymology below)
gay Look up gay at Dictionary.com1178, "full of joy or mirth," from O.Fr. gai "gay, merry," perhaps from Frank. *gahi (cf. O.H.G. wahi "pretty"). Meaning "brilliant, showy" is from c.1300. OED gives 1951 as earliest date for slang meaning "homosexual" (adj.), but this is certainly too late; gey cat "homosexual boy" is attested in N. Erskine's 1933 dictionary of "Underworld & Prison Slang;" the term gey cat (gey is a Scot. variant of gay) was used as far back as 1893 in Amer.Eng. for "young hobo," one who is new on the road and usually in the company of an older tramp, with catamite connotations. But Josiah Flynt ["Tramping With Tramps," 1905] defines gay cat as, "An amateur tramp who works when his begging courage fails him." Gey cats also were said to be tramps who offered sexual services to women. The "Dictionary of American Slang" reports that gay (adj.) was used by homosexuals, among themselves, in this sense since at least 1920. Rawson ["Wicked Words"] notes a male prostitute using gay in reference to male homosexuals (but also to female prostitutes) in London's notorious Cleveland Street Scandal of 1889. Ayto ["20th Century Words"] calls attention to the ambiguous use of the word in the 1868 song "The Gay Young Clerk in the Dry Goods Store," by U.S. female impersonator Will S. Hays. The word gay in the 1890s had an overall tinge of promiscuity -- a gay house was a brothel. The suggestion of immorality in the word can be traced back to 1637. Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.nosegay Look up nosegay at Dictionary.com"bunch of flowers," c.1420, from nose + gay.



Seth says
M 2006-06-05 07:39:17 3663
Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.
I think you are off on this date.  I first encountered "gay" in this usage when i was hitchhiking around California circa 1964.  I remember it clearly.  This guy picked me up and kept asking if i was gay.  Not knowing the usage, i said "Shure i'm gay" ... i though he meant happy.  When he started asking to see my package i knew i had made a big mistake .

Mark de LA says
seth 2006-06-05 08:09:27 3663
M 2006-06-05 07:39:17 3663
Gay as a noun meaning "a (usually male) homosexual" is attested from 1971.
I think you are off on this date.  I first encountered "gay" in this usage when i was hitchhiking around California circa 1964.  I remember it clearly.  This guy picked me up and kept asking if i was gay.  Not knowing the usage, i said "Shure i'm gay" ... i though he meant happy.  When he started asking to see my package i knew i had made a big mistake .
Well if you read the whole etymology you see it was used long before that in that context.

Seth says
A very topical video about the hyprocracy of gay republicans ...
... well worth a watch.

Brianna says
I dont relly know what you guys are getting out of this
it sounds like your againts gays, but then again it sounds like your not. Im not i have an uncle who is gay and he got married. I have an Aunt who a lesbaine-she was stright but left her husban for a man LOL- And im Bi
so either u have a problem or i dont
and if you do i dont see why theres nothing wrong with likeing the same sex k.

Biranna says
oops i ment to say (about my aunt) she left her husband for a women

Alex Lynn says
omg ppl get a life an leave the same sex couples alone. watd they do to u huh?? i mean r they MAKING ur marriages any worse by being together...no i didnt think so. :) just get over the fact that they dress better then u an move on

michelle says
all u gay lovers have to get over the gay thing because God didnt make a woman and a woman she made a guy and a woman and yeah sure gays and lesbians did nothing to me but i do not want to see in the streets two people of the same sex making out and confusing the children its not all about them its about the wellfare of a society if they were able to maintain themselves hidden from society all these years they should just keep it that way

Mark de LA says
If gay marriage & gay soldiers & sailors become completely legit then I see no reason not to repeal the laws against polygamy & group marriages as long as the participants stay away from fucking under age children. I would still limit marriage to within the human species though.

Mark de LA says
Well Obama finally flop-flipped:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/09/obama-expected-to-discuss-gay-marriage-position/
My position is still the same - let everyone see what it is like & how gay it is after a few years of commitment & responsibility.  In the light of comprehensiveness (like the immigration reform issue), I suggest that Obama sponsor an amendment which is comprehensive and includes polyamory, polyandry, polygamy & magic switches such as transsexuality provides & consider well an establishment of a universal test for "age of consent" & limits the whole marriage thingy to the human species.
   When we cast aside, update or change centuries of tradition, civil & religious, to the tides of secularism & identity politics let's be sure it is inclusive enough to go another few centuries.  Half measures will not do.
   Marriage has devolved to a tax issue & a state & legal sanction, anyway hasn't it? People can still live with each other & be in love without marriage.


Mark de LA says
M 2012-05-14 05:37:17 3663
seth 2012-05-13 22:01:30 3663
M 2012-05-11 06:40:47 3663
seth 2012-05-11 06:23:51 3663
source: M above
When in recorded history has marriage been defined other than between men & women?
Well, i certainly will agree that historically the word "marriage" has been defined as between a man and a woman.  But i really don't think that this is a disagreement about the semantics of the word.  Words change and so do institutions.  The question that this issue asks is whether our culture has changed enough so that we now need to broaden the institution of marriage to include all people who want to make commitments to each other. 
The law is all about tradition & common law, mentioned twice in the 7th amendment. The only way to resolve "gay marriage" is to make it constitutional & put it in there with another amendment because marriage in common law in the US & Great Britain before it has always meant one thingy.  If the 14th Amendment were sufficient I suspect it would be legal throughout the land by now given the number of lawyers & money interested in the subject.
imho, of course!

Well things change ... people change ... society changes ... culture changes ... words change.  That is usually a good thing.   Oppose change at your own risk.
KEWL, lets abolish marriage it isn't working for 50% of the people, including homosexuals.!!

There is some biblical model for that even: Matthew XXII,25-30  

Mark de LA says
seth 2012-05-11 06:12:33 3663
source: M above
First of all the confusion about "equal protection" is ludicrous! There is no such thing as equal outcome for everyone on everything in that clause. 
Well you may well know more particulars on this than I.  Could you paste here the actual sections in the constitution, or amendments there to that apply?  I do, without any research, believe that your second sentence is totally true ... however, that would have absolutely nothing to do with what i am saying here.  My understanding is that the government must not pass any laws which would protect (or grant advantage to) any group over another.  Is that there in the constitution or not?

Note, i'm affixing rational to this train here.  It might be fun to actually try to do that.
You can actually do the research yourself next time .  My 15966 is a good link to follow the U.S. Constitution with. I searched for your "equal protection".  Results are here. Rational also includes innuendo & insuation as in your rational - we'll get farther if you observe that as well.

Mark de LA says
Chronicling Obama's evolution: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/my-behalf_644310.html


Mark de LA says
seth 2012-05-10 07:22:44 3663
If you think about it, allowing gays to get licenses to marry each other is the only rational thing for the government to do.   After all we do have a thingy in the constitution about (1) equal protection under the law, and (2) separation of church and state.  That marriage is allegedly just between a man and a woman is an article of faith, not reason .... hence the government should stay the fuck out of that issue.  Once that is clear, then there is absolutely no reason to favor or disfavor one kind of union over another. 

Republican should really get their stories straight.  If they want to keep big government out of our lives, then they should not use tradition or faith as an excuse to meddle in the lives of homosexuals who want to make a commitment to each other and want that to be recognized on par with heterosexuals.  
First of all the confusion about "equal protection" is ludicrous! There is no such thing as equal outcome for everyone on everything in that clause.  Second of all the idea that marriage is a right; if it were then every lonely adult should be guaranteed a spouse. We are finding rights everywhere in the nanny state that are a matter of individual endeavor and freedom. Marriage, while it may be a sacred & holy sacrament within a religious context, is nothing more than paperwork, taxes, regulations etc. to the secular government. Lets make it comprehensively solved for government & license polyamory (includes homosexuality), polyandry & polygamy as well and be done with it.  Moreover, redefine the test for "age of consent" so that everyone has that clear no matter where they live.  What you folks are confused at is that several thousands of years of tradition are being sacrificed or "updated" for the political purposes of the politicians. Even Obama declared during his election last time that "marriage is not a right" - although he did it hedgley.


Mark de LA says
My first time CJ & I got the "license" & to be married we needed the judge to pronounce the deed. The pronouncement can be anyone who can serve as the justice of the peace, etc.  Church & State are separate there or not as you choose.

Mark de LA says
In the context of tradition one recently asked "When in recorded history has marriage been defined other than between men & women?"
matrimony Look up matrimony at Dictionary.comc.1300, from O.Fr. matremoine "matrimony, marriage" and directly from L. matrimonium "wedlock, marriage," from matrem (nom. mater) "mother" (see mother (n.)) + -monium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition."patrimony Look up patrimony at Dictionary.commid-14c., "property of the Church," also "spiritual legacy of Christ," from O.Fr. patrimonie (12c.), from L. patrimonium "a paternal estate, inheritance," from pater (gen. patris) "father" + -monium, suffix signifying action, state, condition. Meaning "property inherited from a father or ancestors" is attested from late 14c. Fig. sense of "immaterial things handed down from the past" is from 1580s. A curious sense contrast to matrimony....just asking

See Also

  1. Thought about: rational and intuitive thinking – marc clifton with 95 viewings related by tag "rational".
  2. Thought Symbol VS Being with 0 viewings related by tag "gay marriage".
  3. Thought Example of Stem Cell Research with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  4. Thought This is a Good Reason to Choose Judges Carefully with 0 viewings related by tag "gay marriage".
  5. Thought Goodbye to Language with 0 viewings related by tag "marriage".
  6. Thought The Drone Affair with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".
  7. Thought about: Confirmation Bias with 0 viewings related by tag "rational".
  8. Thought How to Hold a Very Large Conversation & Actually Get Somewhere? with 0 viewings related by tag "rational inquiry".