Do you support Dixie's solution?

[NOVA]

Those protesting were asking that the rights of all people of color be respected and now Gays are asking that the rights of all GAYS be respected, no matter their color.

Your refusal to accept this, speaks more of your beliefs then it does mine.

Does the phase "the content of his character, not the color of his skin", ring a bell.....does that sound like MLK was talking only about "people of color"...(hate the phase)....
what are you, a teenager ?

Homosexuals are asking us to re-define the definition of marriage....a word that has traditionally meant the union of one man and one women since the word was coined generations ago...
Please don't give me some crap that it meant something else....we both know it didn't .....
they are asking for special treatment that never existed before in this culture, ever.....

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Does the phase "the content of his character, not the color of his skin", ring a bell.....does that sound like MLK was talking only about "people of color"...(hate the phase)....
what are you, a teenager ?

Homosexuals are asking us to re-define the definition of marriage....a word that has traditionally meant the union of one man and one women since the word was coined generations ago...
Please don't give me some crap that it meant something else....we both know it didn't .....
they are asking for special treatment that never existed before in this culture, ever.....

At one time it also was defined as the union of one man and as many women that he could support, so what's your point?

 

[NOVA]

At one time it also was defined as the union of one man and as many women that he could support, so what's your point?

Not in this country or culture....though its common in the middle east, they marry children at 1 year of age, etc...so what ....if you have no point, SU

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Not in this country or culture....though its common in the middle east, they marry children at 1 year of age, etc...so what ....if you have no point, SU

Some parts from a site that was really easy to google to:

Marriage in North America has evolved in different ways over the past 16 decades:
1. Polygamous marriages: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS church), first introduced the concept of polygyny -- one man married to multiple spiritual wives -- in the early 1840s. The practice has been variously called the Law of Abraham, or the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, and Celestial Plural Marriage. The associated Law of Sarah stated that women must stoically accept plural marriages. Their founder, Joseph Smith, allegedly had 33 wives. 1 Brigham Young had 55.

2. African-American marriages: In the mid 19th century, African-American slaves were not free to marry as white couples were. "...marriage could only take place after obtaining permission from the owner. Southern state laws denied the slaves legal marriage contracts. Just as some gay and lesbian couples in recent years have gone through commitment ceremonies at sympathetic churches, "slaves...held ceremonies that revealed the seriousness with which they regarded married life. Restrictions on African-American marriages were lifted after the civil war. Couples of all races were then free to legally marry anywhere in the U.S. -- as long as both spouses were of the same race.

3. Inter-racial marriages: Until a few decades ago, inter-racial marriage was considered a criminal act in some U.S. states. In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, had been legally married in the District of Columbia. When they returned to Virginia, they were arrested because their inter-racial marriage violated Virginia's miscegenation laws. They pleaded guilty and were and sentenced to one year in jail. "...the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years." The trial judge, speaking for God, berated the Lovings with a theological speech which seems quaint to many people in the 21st century. He stated in an opinion that: 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix'.
4. Same-sex marriages: Until 2003-JUN-10, same sex couples are not allowed to marry anywhere in North America. On that date, same-sex marriages became legal in Ontario, Canada. They became available in the province of British Columbia, Canada on JUL-8. In these jurisdictions, any two loving, committed couples can now marry, subject only to the consanguinity and age restrictions in the case of opposite-gender couples. Two years later, same-sex marriages were legalized across Canada.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages on 2003-NOV-19 in a ruling on a same-sex marriage case.

These four changes were painful experiences for many North Americans at the time. Many people view the institutions of marriage and the family as forming the basic foundation of society. Any attempt to change either the structure of marriage or the eligibility of people to marry can be profoundly distressing and destabilizing.

North American culture has been able to adapt to the first three major changes -- Polygyny in Utah, African-American marriages, inter-racial marriages with no apparent long-term harm to the nation

You can go read the rest here and then come back and complain about the parts I didn't include.

 

[NOVA]

At one time it also was defined as the union of one man and as many women that he could support, so what's your point?

Some parts from a site that was really easy to google to:

Marriage in North America has evolved in different ways over the past 16 decades:
1. Polygamous marriages: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (a.k.a. LDS church), first introduced the concept of polygyny -- one man married to multiple spiritual wives -- in the early 1840s. The practice has been variously called the Law of Abraham, or the Patriarchal Order of Marriage, and Celestial Plural Marriage. The associated Law of Sarah stated that women must stoically accept plural marriages. Their founder, Joseph Smith, allegedly had 33 wives. 1 Brigham Young had 55.

2. African-American marriages: In the mid 19th century, African-American slaves were not free to marry as white couples were. "...marriage could only take place after obtaining permission from the owner. Southern state laws denied the slaves legal marriage contracts. Just as some gay and lesbian couples in recent years have gone through commitment ceremonies at sympathetic churches, "slaves...held ceremonies that revealed the seriousness with which they regarded married life. Restrictions on African-American marriages were lifted after the civil war. Couples of all races were then free to legally marry anywhere in the U.S. -- as long as both spouses were of the same race.

3. Inter-racial marriages: Until a few decades ago, inter-racial marriage was considered a criminal act in some U.S. states. In 1958, Mildred Jeter, a Black woman, and Richard Loving, a White man, had been legally married in the District of Columbia. When they returned to Virginia, they were arrested because their inter-racial marriage violated Virginia's miscegenation laws. They pleaded guilty and were and sentenced to one year in jail. "...the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years." The trial judge, speaking for God, berated the Lovings with a theological speech which seems quaint to many people in the 21st century. He stated in an opinion that: 'Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix'.
4. Same-sex marriages: Until 2003-JUN-10, same sex couples are not allowed to marry anywhere in North America. On that date, same-sex marriages became legal in Ontario, Canada. They became available in the province of British Columbia, Canada on JUL-8. In these jurisdictions, any two loving, committed couples can now marry, subject only to the consanguinity and age restrictions in the case of opposite-gender couples. Two years later, same-sex marriages were legalized across Canada.
The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages on 2003-NOV-19 in a ruling on a same-sex marriage case.

These four changes were painful experiences for many North Americans at the time. Many people view the institutions of marriage and the family as forming the basic foundation of society. Any attempt to change either the structure of marriage or the eligibility of people to marry can be profoundly distressing and destabilizing.

North American culture has been able to adapt to the first three major changes -- Polygyny in Utah, African-American marriages, inter-racial marriages with no apparent long-term harm to the nation

You can go read the rest here and then come back and complain about the parts I didn't include.

What a fuckin' stretch...

Polygamous behavior has never been legal nor accepted in this country to my knowledge....just because some religious cult practiced it is irrelevant....grow up.

Maybe you'd like to go back and include the marriage practices of the Apaches while you're at it...fool!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

What a fuckin' stretch...

Polygamous behavior has never been legal nor accepted in this country to my knowledge....just because some religious cult practiced it is irrelevant....grow up.

Maybe you'd like to go back and include the marriage practices of the Apaches while you're at it...fool!

But it was legally accepted, that was until it was made illegal.
In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could take away citizenships from all members of the church as long as the LDS continued its practice of polygyny.
Why are you acting this way, over nothing more then facts being presented?

 

[NOVA]

But it was legally accepted, that was until it was made illegal.
In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could take away citizenships from all members of the church as long as the LDS continued its practice of polygyny.
Why are you acting this way, over nothing more then facts being presented?

Lets get our history right.....

I contend that polygamy was never legal in this country. If I'm wrong you can enlighten me....
The Mormons of Utah were practicing polygamy while Utah was a territory, and Lincoln took care of that in 1862....
In no state of the US was it ever legal that I'm aware of....
===============================

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm

1862 July 8, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by Abraham Lincoln.

* First basic federal legislation by the Congress of the United States that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States".
* Bigamy punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years.
* All acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah "pertaining to polygamy and spiritual marriage" were annulled.

1879 January 6, in the first constitutional challenge to interpret the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the territorial court and declared that every civil government had the right to determine whether monogamy or polygamy should be the law of social life under its jurisdiction.

* Thus the Morrill act of 1862 was declared valid, any additional plural marriages were clearly breaking the law of the land. (Larson, pp. 78-79.)

Utah didn't even become a state until 1896.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Lets get our history right.....

I contend that polygamy was never legal in this country. If I'm wrong you can enlighten me....
The Mormons of Utah were practicing polygamy while Utah was a territory, and Lincoln took care of that in 1862....
In no state of the US was it ever legal that I'm aware of....
===============================

http://www.xmission.com/~plporter/lds/chron.htm

1862 July 8, Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law, signed by Abraham Lincoln.

* First basic federal legislation by the Congress of the United States that was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States".
* Bigamy punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years.
* All acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah "pertaining to polygamy and spiritual marriage" were annulled.

1879 January 6, in the first constitutional challenge to interpret the First Amendment to the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision of the territorial court and declared that every civil government had the right to determine whether monogamy or polygamy should be the law of social life under its jurisdiction.

* Thus the Morrill act of 1862 was declared valid, any additional plural marriages were clearly breaking the law of the land. (Larson, pp. 78-79.)

Utah didn't even become a state until 1896.

So you're contending that no US Citizens were living in Utah, until it became a State!!
That sure is a might thin razor, that you're using to split hairs, there!!

Then how could anyone's citizenship be taken away and why would there have been the need for a ruling in 1890??

In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could take away citizenships from all members of the church as long as the LDS continued its practice of polygyny.

 

[NOVA]

So you're contending that no US Citizens were living in Utah, until it became a State!!

I don't know where the hell you got that idea....learn to read
That sure is a might thin razor, that you're using to split hairs, there!!

Then how could anyone's citizenship be taken away and why would there have been the need for a ruling in 1890??

In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could take away citizenships from all members of the church as long as the LDS continued its practice of polygyny.

Man...I thought desh was a pinhead....you're in the running for sure....at lease for peckerhead of the day....
You're actually starting the argue like TCpeckerhead....make and inaccurate claim of what I say, then correct the nonexistent claim...
It works for him everytime.

Are you gonna point out I'm a willfully ignorant neocon clown and I need to read your links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated... AND don't forget, "reviewing the chronology of the posts" is also very important.?????

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Man...I thought desh was a pinhead....you're in the running for sure....at lease for peckerhead of the day....
You're actually starting the argue like TCpeckerhead....make and inaccurate claim of what I say, then correct the nonexistent claim...
It works for him everytime.

Are you gonna point out I'm a willfully ignorant neocon clown and I need to read your links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated... AND don't forget, "reviewing the chronology of the posts" is also very important.?????

He's a piece of work, ain't he? This debate has devolved to him grasping at polygamist settlers in 1890 Utah territory to illustrate how 'marriage' was somehow defined by society differently in America, then accuses YOU of using a "mighty thin razor" to split hairs with! Priceless!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Man...I thought desh was a pinhead....you're in the running for sure....at lease for peckerhead of the day....
You're actually starting the argue like TCpeckerhead....make and inaccurate claim of what I say, then correct the nonexistent claim...
It works for him everytime.

Are you gonna point out I'm a willfully ignorant neocon clown and I need to read your links to far left "links for assholes" websites to get educated... AND don't forget, "reviewing the chronology of the posts" is also very important.?????

Did you have a point, other then trying to prove that you can type??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

He's a piece of work, ain't he? This debate has devolved to him grasping at polygamist settlers in 1890 Utah territory to illustrate how 'marriage' was somehow defined by society differently in America, then accuses YOU of using a "mighty thin razor" to split hairs with! Priceless!

Fixed that for you.
No thanks necessary.

 

[NOVA]

Did you have a point, other then trying to prove that you can type??

You really gotta learn to accept the fact that might be wrong sometimes....
Its not a big deal...When I make some stupid claim and get corrected, I just let my ego take the hit and move on....we just can't be right all the time...I know it and I accept it....
This time...you're wrong....
Its better than Tc AND desh ....they're wrong all the time...

 

[Timshel]

No, they weren't....Blacks didn't demand civil rights for themselves at the expense of anyone else....they were demanding the same rights as everyone else, they wanted nothing special....like I said, take a break and stop making an ass of yourself.

And homosexuals are not asking for civil rights at the expense of anyone else or anything special.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You really gotta learn to accept the fact that might be wrong sometimes....
Its not a big deal...When I make some stupid claim and get corrected, I just let my ego take the hit and move on....we just can't be right all the time...I know it and I accept it....
This time...you're wrong....
Its better than Tc AND desh ....they're wrong all the time...

I have no problem with that.
In fact I'm glad that you're able to admit that you're wrong, regarding same sex marriages.
Thanks.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And homosexuals are not asking for civil rights at the expense of anyone else or anything special.

Homosexuals already have civil rights, those are not denied to any American, and you've not demonstrated where that is the case. You have not established discrimination, regardless of what you may think. The fact that you can't comprehend how "gay marriage" would be at the "expense" of religious tradition and custom, and that you do not consider that "anything special," reveals why you have a bigoted and stubborn view on this particular issue. I wonder if it's only this issue where your stubborn bigotry comes into play.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Homosexuals already have civil rights, those are not denied to any American, and you've not demonstrated where that is the case. You have not established discrimination, regardless of what you may think. The fact that you can't comprehend how "gay marriage" would be at the "expense" of religious tradition and custom, and that you do not consider that "anything special," reveals why you have a bigoted and stubborn view on this particular issue. I wonder if it's only this issue where your stubborn bigotry comes into play.

Could you please explain how and why "gay marriage" would be at the "expense" of religious tradition and custom??

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Could you please explain how and why "gay marriage" would be at the "expense" of religious tradition and custom??

It doesn't matter, you don't respect it, won't accept it, and will argue against it because of your bigotry on the issue. I may as well waste my time jerking off or doing something equally as fun. Your mind is made up, and nothing I have to say will ever change it, you've proven that.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It doesn't matter, you don't respect it, won't accept it, and will argue against it because of your bigotry on the issue. I may as well waste my time jerking off or doing something equally as fun. Your mind is made up, and nothing I have to say will ever change it, you've proven that.

Ironic post is ironic.

 

[FREEDOMMM]

Why I voted No. Novel but...



I will be upfront with my Bias: I am a Christian Conservative. Furthermore, it insults my intelligence that I must be a bigot to disapprove of Homosexual Behavior. I think your proposal is too cute by half. I am going to be bold by attempting to shake off the surly bonds of political correctness, that I might speak the truth. I will try to be succinct, otherwise this could turn into a manuscript.

Any person who has studied the World's Civilizations is forced to recognize that American Civilization has far outpaced any other in achievement, affluence and human progress. Why is that? What makes America Exceptional? It isn't because we're Ubermenshen promulgating our Genetic Superiority. I dare to posit that it is our historical tradition of adhering to the Judeo-Christian Value System better than any of our forebearers.

Some of you think I'm just being chauvinistic, but am I? Some Civilizations make massive strategic errors that secure their extinction. There are historians for example who believe that Native American Civilizations never advanced because they made the mistake of eating their large animals; thus disabling them from moving large objects, cultivating large agricultural production and building lasting dwellings. Hunter-Gatherer societies put themselves at a disadvantage because in their permanent quest to solve immediate problems like sustenance and winning wars, they failed to spend time on advancing their civilization.

Then take American Society: our citizens are peaceable people who not only made all the right decisions on agriculture and the sciences, but more times than not strove to be moral and hardworking. A Society that frowns on Stealing, Divisive Sexual Immorality(see the Greek word, Porneos ), Murder, Dishonesty, Disrespect toward Elders, Envy and Bizarre Religions that allow some or all of the above mentioned things will be far more orderly and productive than a society that is permissive toward those things. For those of you who aren't paying attention, I just paraphrased most of the Ten Commandments.

I have labored up to now to preface this Crucial point: Politics is about the preservation and improvement of the civil society. If more people orient themselves toward meaningless self gratification rather than procreation, a society is at risk. You may say, " Oh it only 2-10% of the population, and it's none of my business anyway". While it's worth pointing out the risk of Declining Birth Rates and the ensuing Demographic Implosion, that's just an unpleasant side effect. The real problem is that when somebody casts aside a portion of the Values System that has served us so well, it will become habit forming and they will abandon other crucial values; thus destroying our sole Historical Advantage.

I could go much further by demonstrating that this behavior was endemic within other decadent, declining civilizations. Instead, allow me to end with something very simple: If God tells us not to do something, it's because it doesn't work, or it ends badly. God hates all Sin: be it Homosexuality or the Hatred in the Heart of a Homophobe. Why? Because it's unhealthy in both cases. I defer to the Wisdom of the Almighty when I say I do not want my government to proactively encourage this behavior in any way. They should not coerce those who practice it, but they should not enable it either. I appreciate your attempt to reach an Armistice in the Culture Wars, but this beyond compromise.

We must win, lest we embrace our decline.