| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
antonio
Canada
2177 Posts |
 Posted - 23 Jan 2010 : 11:55:50 AM
|
God has been around for lots more than a mere 5000 years—and according to all reports, did quite alright both by Himself and with our ancestors that we know little about. It also seems that sexual activity without marriage and same sex marriage has also been around for more than 5000 years. IN fact, some 200000 years by the latest estimates.*
From what little we can clean, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions. It is believed that same-sex marriage was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. It was even more common in Africa and in the north American continent, pre-invasion.
Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong.In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized):
In “The origins and role of same-sex relations in human societies” James Neill, writes that primitive tribes (for reasons discussed in the book) very early engaged in partnering both same sex and mixed sex. When more established ritualization of unions began, older and dominant males collected women while younger males commonly resorted to same sex unions. It is likely these same sex unions were encouraged because they created a more peaceful and less competitive intrigue and violence.
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.1
Formalized, socially-recognized relations between two men also exist in Africa. Among the Zande (located in southwestern Sudan, northeastern Congo, and the Central African Republic), a male warrior could marry a teenage boy by paying bridewealth to the boy's parents.
Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males.
*Sources, as cited and wikipedia |
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2010 : 2:43:55 PM
|
quote:
From what little we can clean, there is a long history of recorded same-sex unions around the world.
Super-strength detergent or boric acid  ?
Tell us what you really think, antonio   .
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
 |
|
|
antonio
Canada
2177 Posts |
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 26 Jan 2010 : 06:31:52 AM
|
.
I'm still practising. I've added the clenched fists, arms bent at the elbows and pumping up and down frantically East-Indian move, but this gentlemen still has me beat hands down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fruHQhNe-UM
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
Edited by - paralambano on 26 Jan 2010 07:07:09 AM |
|
|
|
antonio
Canada
2177 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jan 2010 : 01:18:20 AM
|
Yeeeees, I'm sure you're getting a lot of practice with that "clinched fist, pumping up and down, frantically." |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
|
|
antonio
Canada
2177 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2010 : 1:24:14 PM
|
.
By John Corvino, columnist, 365gay.com
02.12.2010 9:21am EST
Since my recent column discussing the “definitional argument” against
marriage equality, I’ve learned something unsurprising:
There is no single, standard “definitional argument.” There are,
rather, various definitional arguments, and part of the problem is
pinning down which one our opponents intend.
In the hope of advancing the debate—or at least of showing that the
moving target is indeed moving—I’d like to distinguish, and briefly
respond to, four versions. I’ll give them names for convenience:
1. The “Logical Impossibility” Version:
This, in some ways, is the purest definitional argument against same-
sex marriage. It is also the silliest. Here’s Alliance Defense Fund
attorney Jeffery Ventrella:
“[T]o advocate same-sex ‘marriage’ is logically equivalent to seeking
to draw a ‘square circle’: One may passionately and sincerely persist
in pining about square circles, but the fact of the matter is, one
will never be able to actually draw one.”
And again,
“The public square has no room for square circles, because like the
Tooth Fairy, they do not really exist.”
Of course we don’t have room for things that don’t exist….precisely
because they don’t exist. Which is why we don’t bother arguing against
square circles or passing constitutional amendments banning them. It
would be pointless.
By contrast, people fight same-sex marriage because it DOES exist: in
five states and various foreign countries. If same-sex marriage really
were like a square circle, Ventrella could simply ignore it. That he
doesn’t is telling.
2. The “Obscuring Differences” Version:
This version, which is related to the first, states that same-sex
relationships and opposite-sex relationships are so different that
using the word “marriage” to apply to both would obscure a fundamental
distinction in nature. As Maggie Gallagher puts it, “Politicians can
pass a bill saying a chicken is a duck and that doesn’t make it true.
Truth matters.”
Note that the objection is not that using terms this way would have
bad consequences— confusing the butcher, for example—but that it would
fail to divide up the world correctly. Even if nobody noticed or
cared, such usage would blur a real boundary in nature.
The problem (as I argued previously) is that marriage is a human
institution, the boundaries of which are drawn and redrawn for human
purposes.
3. The “Bad Consequences” Version:
But what if such redrawing had bad consequences? This, I think, is the
real concern driving the definitional arguments. Gallagher, for
example, thinks that defining “marriage” to include gays and lesbians
would ultimately erode the institution.
David Blankenhorn has similar concerns. Indeed, his own version of the
argument makes the consequentialist undercurrent apparent: instead of
square circles or duck-chickens, Blankenhorn asks us to imagine what
would happen if the word “ballet” were used to refer to all forms of
dance.
Of course redefining “ballet” that way would be bad. But that’s
because doing so would frustrate human aims. If you go to the theater
to see ballet and end up getting Riverdance instead, you’ll likely be
upset or disappointed.
Would extending marriage to gays and lesbians frustrate human aims in
a similar way? Marriage-equality opponents like Blankenhorn and
Gallagher certainly think so. Specifically, they think it would sever
marriage from its core function of binding children to their mothers
and fathers.
But now it seems that the definitional point is no longer doing any
argumentative work. The real objection here is that same-sex marriage
harms society. If that’s the objection, let’s focus on it directly.
4. The Constitutional- Law Version:
There is, however, a fourth version of the definitional argument, one
specifically related to the constitutional debate.
Legal advocates for marriage equality—such as Ted Olson and David
Boies, who are challenging California’s Prop. 8—often argue that gays
and lesbians deserve the freedom to marry because of the Fourteenth
Amendment’s equal-protection and due-process guarantees. But if same-
sex marriage involves CHANGING the definition of marriage, opponents
contend, the Fourteenth-Amendmen t argument falters.
According to this version of the definitional argument, gays and
lesbians are not being denied equal access to an existing institution,
they are asking for an existing institution to be re-defined. There
may well be good reasons for redefining it. But that is a matter for
legislatures to decide, not courts.
This version is more subtle than the others, and addressing it fully
requires more space than I have here. But my quick response would be
that marriage caselaw over the last four decades suggests that male-
female isn’t a defining element in the way this argument requires.
Consider for example Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which affirmed
the right of married couples to purchase contraceptives, and Turner v.
Safley (1987), which affirmed the right of prisoners to marry.
Marriage is defined by its core purposes, and those purposes do not
necessarily require (actual or potential) procreation.
The fact is that same-sex couples fall in love and commit their lives
to each other for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, until
death do they part.
And if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, then legally speaking it ought to be treated like a duck.
***********
John Corvino, Ph.D. is an author, speaker, and philosophy professor at
Wayne State University in Detroit. His column “The Gay Moralist”
appears Fridays on 365gay.com |
|
|
|
paralambano
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 14 Feb 2010 : 8:44:07 PM
|
5. The I Forgot I'm in a Christian Community Forum Theological Version:
>Don't know what to say to convince them.<
10, 9, 8, 7, . . . |
Edited by - paralambano on 14 Feb 2010 8:50:09 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
That Puny 5000 year record
