Well, hey, why not? Call it “Sidereal Marriage” or something. “I’m married…no, I mean sidereally.” Or just add the religious denomination. “Married…in a Baptist Church.” If they feel the need to explain, “I’m not gay” then they’ll find a way to do so.
How about “bondage”? No, wait, that’s taken.
Never mind.
Since Magellan is back from the weekend, I figured I’d give this a bump.
In western culture, yes. With the Mormon exception I repeat below.
Can you point to how “marriage in Western culture has usually been defined as the union of a woman and a man” is “just wrong”? When has it not been so? Sure we have the pimple on timeline of history during which Mormons practiced polygamy. Anything else?Because that doesn’t negate my statement.
[quote=“ElvisL1ves, post:397, topic:655967”]
Given the support and careful explanation behind the contrary opinion, that this would keep gays from being legally and socially accepted as normal and that the burden is therefore behind the proponents, and the lack of support behind the opinion in question, it’s certainly both fair and illuminating to dismiss it as insincere on its face, and that it is in fact intended to have the effect we all know it would have. /QUOTE]
My idea handles the legal problem. And sorry to break it to you, but while homosexuality is natural, it is not “of the norm”.
Point to how I’m being dishonest. Please be specific. That way I can see if your error is due merely to your profound stupidity or you are lying to boot.
There aren’t enough :rolleyes:s.
False. Try reading my posts. Thanks!
If you have read them and have concluded that the sole reason for me wanting to protect the word and preserve its meaning is “it pleases me”, there is no point to you reading anything I post, since the words are not being taken in.
What was the gender make up of these couples?
Too bad. I’m sure that there are things I don’t like about you. Like the way you opine on someone’s position without even understanding it.
This might have been funny if you had been able to glean the meaning of the many words I’ve typed on the subject. Hell, the two threads that are active now would have been enough. But, nah…
It has been so carefully and extensively and frequently explained to you how it does not that your failure to grasp it is no one’s fault but your own.
And that’s why you’re being called a bigot. That, and wanting to make those non-“normal” people sit in the back of the marriage chapel. Duh.
By ignoring every single explanation you’ve been give for how you’re both factually and morally wrong, replying only with more autistic repetition of your bigotry.
You don’t really come here for the hunting, do you?
Pictured below is the enormity of my surprise at finding out that magellan, of the gay friends, the gay employees, and the totally non-religious reasons for making the nonexistence of gay marriage his sole animating purpose in life, is one of those people who thinks that homosexuals didn’t exist or form couples throughout history and were in fact invented in 1978 by Jews and liberals:
.
No it hasn’t. I’ve found every explanation offered so far to be wanting. That should be obvious.
I thought you liked FACTS. No? Okay.
This shows the leagues of depth to your stupidity. How do you know I’ve ignored every single explanation that’s been offered? To go further, how many leagues of stupid does your stupidity descend to for your pea brain to conclude that, in spite of the hundreds of posts I’ve responded to, that I am, in fact, “ignoring every single explanation”?
Stuff like this is why you are Number 1 in my book, ElvisL1ives. There are tons of posters who I disagree with on just about everything. Some of them are smart, some very smart. Other are stupid. Truly stupid. But of the last group, I hold you to be the poster boy. Way to go!
Say what?! (Hmm, two people can’t be this stupid, can they?) Elvis, you devil, is that you? SOCK CHECK ON AISLE 408! CR, how in the world do your synapses fire for you to conclude that someone—me—who is of the opinion that homosexuality is natural would think that gay people didn’t exist before 1978? Or that they didn’t form couples? Especially with the discussions on SSM that have covered ancient Greece. :rolleyes:
Welcome back to the conversation, Magellan. A lot of snarky stuff has passed by since you were last active in this thread, and I don’t expect you to read it all, but I’m kind of interested in your opinion of my prediction in post 361.
Wait, what? Are you claiming that early Mormonism is the ONLY time that polygamy has been extensively practiced in “western culture”?
Are you perhaps trying to use “western culture” as synonymous with “US history”? Because they’re very different things, and the claim that you’re making about polygamy is true for the latter but not for the former.
Not really fair, by the way: if you limit discussion of marriage to cultures in which an explicitly monogamous religion ruled governments for most of their 2-millennia history, you’ll of course get (something close to) the results you want. But outside of Christianity, polygamy is very common, more so than monogamy.
Polygamy in the United States has a long history. Many Native American tribes practiced polygamy (generally polygyny)[7] and European mountain men often took native wives and adopted the practice.[8] Some tribes seem to have continued the practice into the 20th century.[8]
Scots-Irish settlers, and some Welsh emigrants, carried long-standing multiple partner traditions to the Americas from Europe.[8] Utopian and communal groups established during the mid-19th century had varying marriage systems, including group marriage and polygyny. (Loue, pp. 27–30) There is also some evidence in the American South for multiple marriage partners, particularly after the Civil War.[8]
Polygamy has also been practiced, discreetly, by some Muslims living in America.[9]
Christian polygamy is a more modern development of a polygamist culture.[10][11][unreliable source?] They assert that the movement has no connection with Joseph Smith.
Because polygamy has been illegal throughout the United States since the mid-19th century, and in many individual states before that, sources on alternative marriage practices are limited. Consequently, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the extent of the practice in the past and at the present time.
Of course, North America does not solely make up “Western Culture”.
Hell, polygamy has also been practiced plenty within Christianity, and not just by Mormons.
It’s true that polygamy is almost extinct among Christians nowadays, and there have always been influential elements of mainstream Christian doctrine that condemned it. But the fact that some early Church leaders kept trying to disallow polygamy just indicates how tenaciously some early Christian communities regarded it as normal.
Polygamy was also routinely practiced in Jewish societies well into the Roman Empire, and I have a hard time figuring out how anybody’s going to argue that Biblical Jews don’t count as part of “western culture”. (Or is it that Biblical Jews only count as part of western culture when they’re forbidding homosexual sex but not when they’re allowing polygamous heterosexual marriage? :rolleyes: )
So…you were Just Asking the Question about the gender make-up of those couples for no particular reason?
[/QUOTE]
Quoted some more because I should very much like to hear a straight answer to the question you ask.
The single set of benefits both couples receive kick in after they are joined in ceremony, not before.
There are two different questions that people like LHOD seem intent on conflating. One is the single wet of legal benefits and privileges couples tap into after they’ve been joined either through marriage or civil union (or other term). The other is who is entitled to tap into those legal benefits and privileges. You can’t conflate them because before the couples are joined, they are merely individuals “dating”. The legal benefits and privileges are reserved for committed couples only, those who have expressed that commitment through either marriage or civil unions. Two different issue.
Huh?
That’s ridiculous. So your claim then becomes that committed couples are treated equally, but dating couples are treated unequally? It’s going to take me awhile to wrap my head around how stupid an idea that is. But I will, eventually. You’re a project.