And THAT’s why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to get married.
Your question is totally beside the point. My point is that marriage is a fluid institution and looks different in every historical period. Greek marriage is not Roman marriage, is not Medieval marriage, is not Victorian marriage, is not marriage today. There is absolutely no reason why we should be afraid of broadening our concept of marriage, since ‘our concept’ of marriage has only been around a few hundred years, at the most.
Polygamy is only one end of a spectrum - a man had multiple legitimate wives in the Hellenistic monarchies, but you’ve disallowed that as ‘non-representative’. Okay. What about a legitimate wife and a concubine? Does that fit into your view of ‘traditional marriage’?
In democratic Athens - the best place in the ancient world to find ‘non-elite’ opinions, since although not in wealth, but in political power, all free citizen males were equal - the orator Demosthenes stated:
“Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children and to be faithful guardians of our households.” (Demosthenes 59 (Against Neaira).122)
You’re trolling, aren’t you?
They’re not gay people, they’re gay-shaped people.
Actually, we’re four-dimensional higher beings. The gay-shaped things that you 3-dimensional folk see are just the facets we project into your limited dimensional experience.
And I didn’t know you were such a noodge.
If something is triangle shaped … guess what … it’s a triangle.
For the record, cobalt lattices are strongly triangular in nature, with bonds forming the sides of the triangles. So are some naturally-occurring gold lattices.
We’re a subset of the superintelligent shade of the color blue.
Well, this thread has conclusively proven the existence of geometrically defined troll-shaped objects!
Some of us are indigo girls.
Thanks, y’all!
Heh, that was good.
So we have someone arguing that triangles don’t exist, Rome had presidents and that same-sex marriage should be illegal.
I think that means we can declare victory pro-SSM.
Sigh. I was expecting something like this, but yeah, okay- so now we have to find 2-D objects in a 3D world? That’s pretty tough. You’re right. I don’t think we can really do that. Semantics wins again. =(
Or does it?
Worth a shot.
Pick your ownto refute.
I doubt this will change your mind at all. But it’s worth a shot. As I think it might fulfill your original premise of a triangle in Nature. But I still expect another semantics argument of just because it has 3 angles that add up to 180, and 3 sides- that still doesn’t make it a triangle. But at least it was fun to try and rack my brain to come up with an answer for your 2D refuting of our 3D shapes.
How 'bout the shadow of one of the objects Miller linked to?
I truly have much to learn.
:bows to a master: :smack:
Drag Queens in limousines
nuns in blue jeans
dreamers with big dreams
poets and AWOL marines
actors and barflies
writers with dark eyes
drunks that philosophise*
yeah, these are my friends
Say Goshay y’all
*that’s me
Ah. That helps a lot. I’ve been trying to understand this issue lately ever since I read Antinor1’s thread about protesting. And I’m still confused about why people are protesting after the election took place.
I looked at this website No on 8 and this one Join the Impact and they don’t seem to be saying the same thing. One seems to be saying that the fight is over for now and that they knew that it would be an uphill battle, so they are joining in commiserating and showing solidarity. That makes sense to me. But the other website is about protesting and there are at least a couple comments where they’re talking about getting people back for voting against their issue. Wouldn’t the time for protest be before the vote?
And while they both say that peacefulness and non-hate is what they’re about, I’ve seen more threatening in this thread than most others about volatile issues. . and most of those threats coming from the LGBT side. That’s disappointing.
From what very little I’ve read so far, this seems to be what I’m concluding:
Perhaps someone can point me in a direction where the arguments are clearer and more cohesive?
I’m pissed. People are pissed. I’ve been quite impressed at the fire that is being spit by our straight allies. It is insulting, degrading, and demeaning to be in the position that we’re in. But if anyone is confusing my passion and endurance on this issue with anything other than what is well within reason of human emotional response, and a required catalyst to turn the tide and to spark the revolution, they are mistaken.
This election is over, but what I believe we are seeing is a much more aggressive political campaign that will be maintained until the next ballot-driven opportunity (2010 in California’s case), not to mention the appeals going on now and legal action being taken, and likely to be taken on behalf of the 18,000 couples who married in California over the summer, and in other states with volatile environments on this topic.
What, you think this issue isn’t ever going to be on the California ballot again? This is before the vote: the vote in 2010, when we repeal this piece of shit amendment. This time around, we’re not going to complacently expect Californians to do the right thing on their own. Look forward to hearing about this issue a lot in the next two years.
Can you point to a single post in this thread where a pro-SSM poster has threatened anyone?