So, I was reading the newspaper the other day and I came across this article written by this right wing pundit, Star Parker. she wrote an article stating that:
"As many Americans who quietly go to church and unobtrusively raise their families have sat by quietly and passively over the years, left-wing activist such as Frank (D-MA) have hijacked our nation and our culture. Now that those who care about traditional values respond, they are called intolerant.
Initiatives to constitutionally define marriage between a man and a woman have not come out of the blue. They are in response to left – wing inspired judicial activism that, if ignored, would result in homosexual marriage becoming a formal and legal reality in America."
So in other words, "real" Americans don't hate homosexuals instead they just opposed gay marriage by banning it because gays was the one who started to threaten sanctity of marriage by demanding the right to married. You see, real Americans don't had a problem with gays living happily ever after so long as they don't force their morality and views on the rest of America by destroying the sanctity of marriage by getting married.
See gays, when you started to demand the right to married the person you love, you force divorce heterosexuals, twice married, and childless Christians to get off their butt and defined marriage between a man and a woman because you destroyed marriage by getting marry. Two lesbians who got married in their 80's in San Francisco in 2008 had make Britney Spears 55 hour marriage to a male friend less sacred.
How dare you try to gay married each others and force heterosexuals to accept your gay marriage.
I don't know much about Ms. Star Parker but it seem to me that she is very homophobic though she cliams not be one.
p.s. I can't seem to find the article at the newspaper website. so just google "star parker and barney frank", and you will get to the article.
I agree. I find your sarcasim pretty funny though. People will oppose somethings just for the hell of it. I have heard people state that if Obama does not get elected there will be a "race war" I bet Charles Manson is just laughing in his cell.
But anyways I believe that people are raised this way then when they get older they just can't remember to decide for themselves. I was never told it was wrong or right so I decided that equal rights should be allowed and how can people judge when they have no idea about things? It is just stupid. Another reason why I can not stand humanity sometimes.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I am voting for Lewis Black.
DrifterDani~
I'm actually quite a fan of Star Parker. Her column appears in my local newspaper. She is pretty far right though.
To be honest, I don't think I've ever really discussed my personal views on gay marriage on this site because I was afraid of the potential backlash. I will say that many of those who oppose it do NOT hate homosexuals in general, but there is a vocal minority who certainly give that impression.
I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm fine with that. I think it can be compared to having friends who are different religions than you- you don't agree with their most valued beliefs, but that doesn't affect your friendship. Tolerance does not mean flat out acceptance of others, it means, obviously, just tolerating them.
When I was a senior in high school, there was a girl in the freshmen class who sort of clung to me. I was nice to her, I went to her birthday party, I defended her when other kids were mean--I guess I called her my friend. But I didn't accept her. She was annoying, and, well, a freshman. I tolerated her.
Maybe this isn't what you meant, but the way it's worded makes "tolerating" sound pretty demeaning. Like your friends are beneath you, but you try not to hold it against them.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I did notice that, but I didn't bother to change it. Saying "I tolerate you" has an air of elitism and condescension, and that's not what I meant.
Maybe respecting their right to be free even though they are different would be a better way to put it.
Or to refine my sentence yet again (talk about splitting hairs here), I should recognize that people exercise free will in their lives, and that certainly includes actions I might oppose. I've quoted this Voltaire line once before, and I'll use it again (slightly paraphrased): "I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it."
To be honest, I don't think I've ever really discussed my personal views on gay marriage on this site because I was afraid of the potential backlash. I will say that many of those who oppose it do NOT hate homosexuals in general, but there is a vocal minority who certainly give that impression.
Unless your position is particularly vitriolic (whether pro-or-anti-gay marriage), I would suggest that the only "backlash" you might face would be a reasoned counter-argument that would force you to provide a rational support for you opinion. Are you open to a close, intellectual examination of your position?
I have plenty of gay friends, and I'm fine with that.
So...the question that obviously follows is, "do you think that your gay friends should have the same freedom to marry as other U.S. citizens, or not?"
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You're right; I was being paranoid about "backlash."
I'll define myself as lukewarmly opposed to gay marriage. I stated that a vocal minority among conservatives opposes gay marriage because of an obvious hatred for homosexuals, and it is the venomous rhetoric of these groups that has really turned me off from defending a position I happen to share with them, even if for totally different reasons.
I subscribe to the gateway theory. It's like letting the proverbial camel's nose into the tent- once he's in, he won't stop until his entire body is inside. Arguments for the freedom of gays to marry can be applied to any couple seeking marital status- like Mormon fundamentalists, for instance, who take underage girls as their brides. That marriage certainly shouldn't be legalized. Neither should a marriage between multiple wives/husbands to a single husband/wife. I can take even more drastic steps with this- a marriage between a man and his dog, or his car, and the examples can become more and more ridiculous. Expanding the rights of marriage outside of the current strict interpretation of it opens up a marital can of worms. If gays are to legally wed, where can we fairly stop after that?
I could also call into the question the actual legitimacy of homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle. If genetic research proves, beyond a doubt, that homosexuality is outside of a person's control, and is determined primarily through genetic factors, then I would reverse my stance on this issue. As far as I'm aware, no conclusive evidence has been discovered as yet.
If gays are to legally wed, where can we fairly stop after that?
When all consenting adults are allowed to marry. Why do people feel the need to control the lives of others? And in case you didn't already know this, the definition of marriage has already been expanded. Interracial couples are now allowed to marry.
I could also call into the question the actual legitimacy of homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle. If genetic research proves, beyond a doubt, that homosexuality is outside of a person's control, and is determined primarily through genetic factors, then I would reverse my stance on this issue. As far as I'm aware, no conclusive evidence has been discovered as yet.
WHY???!!! Why do we have to prove that we are just doing what comes naturally to have the same rights as everyone else? Is equality too much to ask for? People of any religion can get married, and religion certainly hasn't been proven to be biological. Maybe we shouldn't allow Jews, Muslims, atheists, or any people who aren't Christian to marry.
Arguments for the freedom of gays to marry can be applied to any couple seeking marital status- like Mormon fundamentalists, for instance, who take underage girls as their brides.
Factually incorrect. In the United States, marriage is a legal contract. Minors cannot enter into a legal marriage contract until they have passed the age-of-marital-consent in their respective States. Recognizing same-sex marriage does not affect extant age-of-marital-consent statues in any way. This is also a red herring "slippery slope" argument. For example, once could make the same argument to oppose interracial marriages (and many did, when that was a hot-button issue back in the 1950's).
a marriage between a man and his dog,
A dog can't enter into a legal contract.
or his car
A car can't enter into a legal contract.
and the examples can become more and more ridiculous.
Well, you have one thing right...these examples are rediculous. There is simply no informed legal basis for these concerns. The essential failure of your comparisons is that unlike in the case of a same-sex marriage, at least one of the "partners" in each of your examples in not already legally capable of qualifying for a marriage contract as an individual. Underage children cannot enter into a marriage contract with anyone, and neither can cars or dogs. Both I and my partner, however, do meet all of the qualifications that our system requires of an individual who wishes to enter into such a contract. The question then becomes what is the State's purpose for interfering in our choice to enter into such a contract with another qualified individual. I would suggest that purpose is plainly invidious.
Expanding the rights of marriage outside of the current strict interpretation of it opens up a marital can of worms. If gays are to legally wed, where can we fairly stop after that?
I would suggest that the "fair" place to stop would be at the point where all competent, adult citizens have their fundamental freedom to marry recognized in accordance to the standards set forth in our Constitution.
I could also call into the question the actual legitimacy of homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle.
You could...but it wouldn't be relevant. Our Constitution protects the fundamental rights of citizens regardless of whether their differences are biological (like race) or ideological (like religion). The Fourteenth Amendment applies to "All persons born or naturalized in the United States..." It doesn't make exceptions that permit the State to discriminate against citizens just because some other citizens do not approve of their "lifestyle." This is also irrelevant due to the fact that our Supreme Court has already answered the question of the "legitimacy" of being gay in terms of our rights as U.S. Citizens...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
The supreme court had already rules on polygomy:
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1879 that states may ban plural marriage, and more recent efforts to win legal sanction for it have failed.
In reynolds Vs. USA, the court states that reynolds was not prosecuted because of his religious faith but because he:
"deliberately married a second time, having a first wife living, the want of consciousness of evil intent -- the want of understanding on his part that he was committing crime -- did not excuse him, but the law inexorably, in such cases, implies criminal intent."[1]
After being found guilty by the lower court, Reynolds appealed to the Supreme Court of the Utah Territory, which upheld the conviction.
So, you see there would be no polygomist marriage.
Your arguement about marriage to animals and machine is funny and sad because a car or an animal can't consent to marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States
Also, it use to a crime for people of different race to get married base on religious beliefs:
"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."
Judge Leon Brazile, who upheld the criminal case against the lovings
The supreme courts overrule and response:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
Loving vs. Virginia
Do you really want to go back to that era, where religious dogma rule and people cannot get married base on skin color?
or better yet, women are consider the property of men?
I certainly got a healthy number of replies. I want to lump my own responses all together in this single reply for my own convenience and for ease of reading.
With the exception of you, lgrf4evr, none of the other replies even addresses the issue of polygamy. This presents an example in which the state does in fact control and regulate the contract of marriage between consenting adults.
I understand that polygamy is already illegal. But if polygamists are free adults consenting to get married, how are their arguments any different than the arguments for gay marriage? And so, if this shows that the state is in fact allowed to limit marriage, why can't it extend those limitations upon homosexuals? In order for the law to be applied evenly and fairly, polygamy would have to be legalized. Proponents of gay marriage must also be proponents of polygamy, lest they be accused of hypocrisy. But that’s not my point. My point here, as I’ll elucidate a little more below, is that the state can and does regulate marriage- and quite legally.
Even laws preventing underage marriage are limiting the freedoms of citizens- if a minor consents to marry, and cannot because of age, is the state unfairly restricting them? That would amount to ageism.
My point is that the state can, and does, restrict the freedoms of its citizens- even those which can be linked to a constitutional guarantee (for example, obscene and violent speech are not protected by the First Amendment).
Now, we should move onto a much more difficult and sensitive question- a question which I answered in my original post: why shouldn’t gays (or any other group outside the “traditional” definition of marriage) be married? Well, for one, I stand by my “slippery slope” argument. In any “slippery slope” argument, the “slope” has to begin somewhere. So, in this case, the slope begins after the issue of interracial marriage (hopefully people will be able to follow this weird visual metaphor of mine). Why, you may ask, should it seemingly randomly begin with homosexuals? Patience; that is addressed in the next paragraph. Additionally, dogs and cars cannot enter a legally binding contract; only people can, so I will concede that point to you, blackout and jsaj. But, a contract is only legally binding if all parties enter it in their right minds, for lack of a more politically correct term. In other words, a contract entered upon by someone who is in some way incapacitated is not legally recognizable.
Of course, you’ll all see where this is going. I am suggesting that homosexuality is not a “natural” state, though I concede I have little proof beyond my own hunches. Then again, neither do any of my detractors have undeniable proof that it is. As I said previously, I am prepared to accept homosexuality if science can definitively prove me wrong. For those who propose no proof is needed, and rather, that only the emotional certainty of individual in question will suffice, well, that sounds like a dangerous proposition (that is, if we all used our convictions to justify doing whatever we want). Additionally, this argument settles, to me, the question of whether the “legitimacy” (again, for lack of a better word) of homosexuals is relevant in this discussion. I should clarify I am not questioning the legality of being gay- of course it is, and should be (we all exercise free will). But I remain unconvinced that gay marriage should be legalized, for the reasons provided above.
And lastly, to since we’re on the issue of court rulings, it seems to me Judge Brazile (in lgrf4evr’s post) failed to provide legitimate reasons for the banning of interracial marriage. I did not ever advocate his position, so I hope you aren’t applying it to me. It is interesting that the Supreme Court’s reasoning for overturning the statute banning interracial marriage includes the words, “marriage is… fundamental to our very existence and survival…” That is, marriage exists to provide a stable, loving environment to in which to raise children (of which I’m sure gays are capable) through the process of procreation (of which I’m sure gays are not capable).
One comment... I don't feel like tackling the rest of your comment right now....
Being gay does not render you infertile. And people who are infertile are still permitted to marry, so that's not a great reason to limit marriage. There are more than enough orphaned and abandoned kids in the world for both sets of people to take care of, and since gays are not infertile, they can have their own children, just not, perhaps, by 'natural' means (they need a little scientific intervention to have children with each other).
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I understand that polygamy is already illegal. But if polygamists are free adults consenting to get married, how are their arguments any different than the arguments for gay marriage?
Simple. Laws that prohibit polygamy do not target any particular group of citizens by the application of an invidious categorization in the law. Thus, one cannot claim that these citizens are being denied a basic right as defined by either the rational-basis standard or even the heightened scrutiny standard that sometimes applies in 14th Amendment questions. Thus, the constitutional question regarding same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage are fundamentally different. If these laws, for example, stated that men could have more than one wife, but women can't have more than one husband, or if they said that Baptists could enter into polygamous unions, but Mormons can't...then you would have a similar case.
And so, if this shows that the state is in fact allowed to limit marriage, why can't it extend those limitations upon homosexuals?
Your phrasing here demonstrates perfectly the reason why you can't. Citing the SCOTUS decison of Cleburn v. Cleburn (1985)...
In order for the law to be applied evenly and fairly, polygamy would have to be legalized. Proponents of gay marriage must also be proponents of polygamy, lest they be accused of hypocrisy.
Factually incorrect, on both counts...and honestly, this is a pretty transparent canard that hopes to inflame people's anti-polygamous feelings in order to cloud the arguments for or against same-sex marriage. I does happen however that I would not be opposed to the legalization of polygamous marriages so long as everyone involved in a compentent, informed adult, but my reasoning behind these two questions are based on different constitutional arguments. My argument for legalizing same-sex marriages relies primarily on Fouteenth Amendment, while my argument to premit polygamous marriage is based on the First Amendment.
But that’s not my point. My point here, as I’ll elucidate a little more below, is that the state can and does regulate marriage- and quite legally.
There is no point of contention in the same-sex marriage debate regarding this fact. The question is whether or not laws that are specifically designed to target gay couples and prevent them from marrying represent a legitimate form or regulation that satisfies the constitutional requirement that our laws be devoid of any form of invidious discrimination. There is a growing body of case-law that suggests very strongly that these laws do not meet that requirement.
Even laws preventing underage marriage are limiting the freedoms of citizens- if a minor consents to marry, and cannot because of age, is the state unfairly restricting them? That would amount to ageism.
Factually incorrect. The Supreme Court has consistetnly ruled that age-of-majority laws do not violate the rights of minor citizens (for example, see Stanton v. Stanton, 429 U.S. 501 (1977)).
My point is that the state can, and does, restrict the freedoms of its citizens- even those which can be linked to a constitutional guarantee (for example, obscene and violent speech are not protected by the First Amendment).
Well, for one, I stand by my “slippery slope” argument. In any “slippery slope” argument, the “slope” has to begin somewhere.
I would suggest that the "slippery slope" that you should be watching is the one that erodes the fundamental freedoms and constitutional protections that are afforded to our citizens...but that's just me.
So, in this case, the slope begins after the issue of interracial marriage (hopefully people will be able to follow this weird visual metaphor of mine). Why, you may ask, should it seemingly randomly begin with homosexuals?
A very good question...
But, a contract is only legally binding if all parties enter it in their right minds, for lack of a more politically correct term. In other words, a contract entered upon by someone who is in some way incapacitated is not legally recognizable.
Sigh...it bothers me that in 2008 there are still people who are still clinging to this desperately inaccurate idea. To quote the American Psychological Association...
Of course, you’ll all see where this is going. I am suggesting that homosexuality is not a “natural” state, though I concede I have little proof beyond my own hunches. Then again, neither do any of my detractors have undeniable proof that it is. As I said previously, I am prepared to accept homosexuality if science can definitively prove me wrong.
Yes...we see where this is going. *yawn* It is the same, tired old canard of perpetuating the ignorant idea that homosexuality is "unnatural." I find in iteresting that you base your opinion on "hunches," but expect your opponents to provide "undeniable proof." The inequity of the burden in that expression demonstrates a plain bias, and brings your objectivity into question. There is great deal of debate within the scientific community about the exact biological and environmental factors that leads a person to identify themselves as gay, but there is also an overwhelming general consensus in the scientific community that homosexuality is a perfectly natural expression within the normal ranges of human sexuality. There is a great deal of evidence that supports this conclusion.
It is interesting that the Supreme Court’s reasoning for overturning the statute banning interracial marriage includes the words, “marriage is… fundamental to our very existence and survival…”
Many people make that same leap without understanding the context of that quote, which actually comes from the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942). That case involved the State of Oklahoma's plan to sterilize "habitual criminals." The case was thus focused on the issue of procreation, and the quote reflects this. The Loving decision, however, makes no mention of procreative rights outside of this one reference, and does not rely in any way on the overreaching meaning that you attempt to infer. In fact, the Loving Court couched that quotation in reference to the specific finding of their decision, which stated that (emphasis mine)...
That is, marriage exists to provide a stable, loving environment to in which to raise children (of which I’m sure gays are capable) through the process of procreation (of which I’m sure gays are not capable).
There are several fallacies in this statement. The first (and one would think it would be the most obvious) is that gay people can (and do) have children. There are a number of vectors through which those children are obtained (though a previous relationship, through adoption, through in vitro procedures, etc.). Considering this fact, you statement that marriage is to "provide a stable, loving environment to in which to raise children" would seem to run contrary to your position against same-sex marriage. Why do you think that gay families and their children don't deserve the same "stable, loving environment" as hetero families and their children? Of course, your statement is actually based on an canard, since there is nothing in our current marriage laws that require or even expect heterosexual couples to produce children. In fact, infertile hetero couples are regularly granted marriage licenses, and even couples who deliberately choose to refrain from child-bearing and raising face no obstacle to obtaining such a license. In both cases, this makes your argument seem a bit disingenuous.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Well, there's a major difference between gay marriage and all other things you were talking about. Gay marriage is a union between two consenting adults. Nothing else you described was. It is a far cry from two consenting adults who happen to be the same sex to child polygamy and autophelia.
As for proof beyond a doubt, nothing is proved beyond a doubt. As far as I know, however, there is no objective study that suggests homosexuality to be a matter of choice.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I never really got into the gay marriage conflict but when I think about it.. Marriage is supposed to be the biblical way to unite one soul with another, correct? And if you follow your bible, then marriage is something of a Christian beliefe, correct? And Christians believe that marriage (by God's law) is a union between MAN and WOMAN, correct? So, technically, those who are homosexual or bisexual are not able to be Christian, correct? Oh please don't get me started on how absolutely rediculous religion has become. I find no problem with the uniting of souls who love eachother and are in love with eachother. Perhaps we shouldn't call it "marriage".. Perhaps we should call it the union-of-souls or something. There should be no religion pulled into love. Moral? Yes. But religion, no.
I'm a little off topic in some parts, forgive me.
Marriage is only a Christian ceremony to Christians. To Jews, it's a Jewish ceremony. To Muslims, it's a Muslim ceremony. To atheists, it's a secular ceremony that symbolizes two people being bound for life. For me, a homosexual atheist, it's a ceremony that symbolizes me and the woman i love promising to be together for the rest of our lives.
This isn't a response to you per se, just to people who make the "marriage is a Christian ritual" argument.
There should be no religion pulled into love.
I agree. Although I'm for keeping the word marriage. Why should only certain people own that word? I'm pretty sure people were getting married before there were any Christians.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point of view. But I am going to make a few comments.
Love and marriage are too separate things. The notion of marriage resulting from romantic love is a fairly recent concept in even our own culture. In Western culture historically and in cultures around the world currently, marriage is often more about economics, family alliances, power, status and diplomacy then about romantic love. In pre-historic times, it was probably a survival mechanism that was seen as the best way of ensuring the survival of offspring.
It is true that marriage is a ritual that means different things in different religions and non-religions. It is an institution that certainly pre-dates civilization and probably pre-dates religion. It has many different forms including polygamy. The only common thread is that I am not aware of a single society where it was ever defined as a union of two people of the same sex.
I know that it was about social and economic standing. But that's hardly the case for most people today, at least in the US. I'm also not aware of a society where marriage was between two people of the same sex, but that shouldn't even be part of a same sex marriage debate in my opinion. Although I also think there should be no debate at all.
The only common thread is that I am not aware of a single society where it was ever defined as a union of two people of the same sex.
Your assumption here is inaccurate. There are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo, the Nuer, the Lovedu, the Zulu, the Sotho, the Kikuyu, the Nandi and the Azande peoples (just to name a few of the more well-known), all of whom have traditionally recognized same-sex marriages since ancient times. Closer to home, there are similar marriage arrangements that are historically associated with a number of Native American tribal groups, including the Mohave, the Lakota and the Zuni peoples. These Native American examples are particularly interesting, due to the wealth of sociological literature from the colonial era regarding the study of the "berdache." Heck, the U.S. government even accepted We'wha--a Zuni "lhamana" (or "man-woman")--as an ambassador in 1885-86.
And yes, We'wha was biologically male and had a "husband" in her tribe.
More examples include the Safavidi Dynasty (of the Middle-East), the Melaneians and Papua New Guineans (in the South Pacific), the people of the Song, Ming and Qing Dynasties (historical China), and the Samurai who practiced Shudo (in Japan). These cultures also demonstred a wide-spread accepted same-sex marriages in their midst. And let's not forget the Ancient Greeks and Romans. The Spartans (for example) practiced same-sex military marriages, and the Emporer Nero publically entered into a marriage arrangement with his male lover, Sporus (and many other similar relationships are well documented in the historical records of the Empire). The simple fact is that the idea of accepting same-sex couples is neither a recent nor a particularly unusual societal affectation. On the contrary, when you step away from the always ego-centric myopia of Western judaeo-christianity and islam---and the often quite imaginary versions of redacted history that they tend to espouse--the rabid opposition same-sex couples and their relationships that we see today seems more than a little odd.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Marriage is supposed to be the biblical way to unite one soul with another, correct?
The practice of marriage as an instutution originated as a secular arrangement that pre-dates the founding of the christian religion by many thousands of years (dating back at least as far as recorded history permits us to explore). Even in christian history, prior to the 10th century most western marriages took place completly outside the auspices of the church, and the church did not actually begin to preside over marriage as a sacrament until as late as the 13th century C.E. In the United States, marriage is (and always has been) a secular institution (thank you, First Amendment). That is is also a religious sacrament that is recognized by the religion of some citizens is completely irrelevant (again, thank you, First Amendment). To even attempt to deny access to a legal institution sponsored by the State is just about as plain a violation of the First Amendment as one could envision.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I agree that every indiviual should had the right to married. If these conservatives are so worried about sancity of marriage, why don't they banned divorce.
Honestly, i think that the USA when to hell when we elected the first divorce and to date only divorce as president, Ronald Reagan.
there had been two bachelor as president, James Buchanan who serve one term and Grover Cleveland who got married in his second term of presidency.
Ronald Reagan is the only divorce president out of all the president. I believe that by choosing a divorcee, it means that our society no longer respect marriage and no longer stigmatized divorcee.
Beside, the bible said that what god had created (though marriage of a man and a woman) let men not destroyed it.
so it means that the laws of men should not destroyed the sancity of marriage between two inidivuals by granting them a divorce.
You know Jews (who were around long before Christians, and tend to actually follow the laws in the Old Testament, unlike Christians...) actually allow for divorce?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Wow, i didn't know that jews allowed divorce to exist. I wonder where the catholics and prostestant gets their belief about divorce and homosexuality than?
I see that reform jews or jews in particulars tends to be very tolerance of homosexuals, pro-women rights, and others.
jews, along with the qaukers were the many of the white faces that help african americans during the civil right era.
if you read about the civil rights era, you can see that many of the white people that was killed by the prostestant white southerners were jews.
yet i don't understand where the prostestants and the rest of the other intolerance people get their beliefs.
The Jews don't exactly have the greatest track record when it comes to being persecuted, so it really doesn't surprise me that they were targeted during the civil rights era as well. I mean, you have pograms in the Soviet Union, you have the Inquisition in Spain... There are still many, many Christian groups that go out and actively try to convert Jews to Christianity (Jew for Jesus is one big one).
There are bigoted and idiotic people in every religious group. I think it's more of a personality trait than it is a defining characteristic of the religion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I agree, here is a qoute by a jewish activist during the civil right movement.
"As Jews we bring to this great demonstration, in which thousands of us proudly participate, a twofold experience—one of the spirit and one of our history... From our Jewish historic experience of three and a half thousand years we say: Our ancient history began with slavery and the yearning for freedom. During the Middle Ages my people lived for a thousand years in the ghettos of Europe... It is for these reasons that it is not merely sympathy and compassion for the black people of America that motivates us. It is, above all and beyond all such sympathies and emotions, a sense of complete identification and solidarity born of our own painful historic experience. "
Joachim Prinz
also, if you were catholic or non black minorities, you are also not will like.
the KKK don't like jews because they reject christ, they don't like catholic because they bow down to a roman emprorer (the pope), and they don't likes minorities because they are descendent of cain nor do they like homosexuals because it goes against god's law.
people always find ways to justify hate.
read my blog on abortion and parental notification.
Quote:
"There are numerous examples of the relationships of same-sex couples being recognized as "marriage" in a great many historical--and in a growing number of modern--societies. For example, from the African continent we know of the Yoruba, the Ibo"
Blackout, I'm half yoruba, and I lived in Nigeria for a while, but I've never heard anything about any history of same-sex couples. Can you tell me or give examples of this, thanks.
Question:
I've tried to use the quote tag but it doesn't come out right, can anyone tell me how to use it correctly? Thanks
Which one did you try to use? The HTML blockquote tag requires the use of angle brackets, and is just like any other HTML formatting. The quote tag itself is not HTML, and so it uses regular brackets ([ and ]), and it requires you to put in a title to your comment, which you don't normally have to do. Otherwise, it functions the same way as an HTML tag.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The institution of woman-marriage in Africa: a cross-cultural analysis.
"The institution of woman-marriage has been documented in approximately 40 precolonial African societies and has endured to the present in some cases. This practice, whereby a woman could legally marry one or more women, had two general forms. The first form existed if a woman created and controlled her own economic surplus. She could then pay the bridewealth necessary to marry a wife, in the same manner as a man. In the second form, a woman married another woman in order to augment kinship ties (e.g., a wife bore children for her female husband; a wife bore children for deceased, suppositious, or childless kin of her female husband; a woman married her brother's daughter and further strengthened the ties between a uterine brother and sister, etc.)."
Traversing Gender and the Colonial Madness: Same Sex Relationships, Customary Law and Change in Tanzania, 1890-1990
Women's History in Global Perspective
Boy-wives and Female Husbands
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.