okay, so I found this link about how Pres. Bush is trying to ban same-sex marriage because he thinks marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. i agree with that to a certain extent. i think that it should be between man and woman but also between man and man, and woman and woman. so he's pushing for an amendment to ban it. here's the link: http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060603101509990022. you may have to copy and paste it to actually read the whole article. what do you guys think?

So, I want to do an experiment. What i want you guys to do is reply to this thread saying either 'Black and White' or 'Rainbow.' I want to see who says what.

Banning Gay Marriage: Just Downright Silly.

Mmhm. I heard about this. The reason this is all coming up at this point in time is the upcoming elections. Also, the flag amendment (head on over to aclu.org and send a letter to congress) and abortion are being hotly debated.

The thing with history is that we can learn from it. We change history. That doesn't always have to be the definition of marriage. We're moving forward into a new millenium and we need to reflect that. Customs that hurtfully discriminate against others are just downright silly.

quote:

Well in that case the husband owns the wife and all the property


Uh, no. I'm only talking about definitions here; what you do with those definitions is where the laws come in.

Uh, yes. that used to be the legal definition of a marriage.

okay, so I found this link about how Pres. Bush is trying to ban same-sex marriage because he thinks marriage should be a union between a man and a woman. i agree with that to a certain extent. i think that it should be between man and woman but also between man and man, and woman and woman. so he's pushing for an amendment to ban it. if you stand behind me and don't like what the president is doing, i'm starting a petition, so please sign it with your name and your home state.

1. Kelly Shonting - Tennessee
2.Allen McCoy-Tennesse
3.Jonathan Cunningham - Penn

quote:

Well in that case the husband owns the wife and all the property

Uh, no. I'm only talking about definitions here; what you do with those definitions is where the laws come in.

The problem is, changing legal definitions is a thorny, dangerous business. For example, we can expand common definitions of "obscene" to include "offensive to individuals". Problem is, that could theoretically outlaw any form of speech, particularly speech critical of an individual.

This is not to say legislating by changing terms and definitions isn't done; but that it is a double-edged sword that can be used to easily restrict liberties as well as expand them.

quote:

Originally posted by freedomordeath:
iamstar, when did you find out about this? I've known about the bill for a while, almost a month I think. It was only recent that I became really upset, mostly because Bush stated it would benefit "all" of society...

A couple of days ago. I know that this is a repeat subject but I just couldn't resist making another topic. Bush is an idiot - you should know that Freedom.

quote:

That's not true at all. You're simply picking ONE tradition. You can't argue that across cultures throughout history, the concept of marriage is seperate from homosexual relationships. Example: Ancient Greece. There were male-male relationships, however the "Marriage" between a man and a woman was a seperate situation. Again this insitution has been used as a way to transfer power, ensure heirs, and act as a reproductive unit, even as a diplomatic tool. It hasn't always been about male dominance either.

I have been proven wrong and I am sorry. I was speaking from what I have been taught. Next time I will do a little extra research.

iamstar, when did you find out about this? I've known about the bill for a while, almost a month I think. It was only recent that I became really upset, mostly because Bush stated it would benefit "all" of society...

quote:

you could call it a "Marriage-Union" or a "Marriage-in-Law"

To me that makes gay couples seperate from straight couples. It puts their "unions" on a different level that straight "unions". That's inherently unequal.

quote:

Originally posted by LoveTheRainbow:
So you belive the historical definition of marriage is what we should stick with?

Well in that case the husband owns the wife and all the property. And then you should know that you have to marry into the same race and same religion otherwise it is not "historical" nor "Traditional"

That's not true at all. You're simply picking ONE tradition. You can't argue that across cultures throughout history, the concept of marriage is seperate from homosexual relationships. Example: Ancient Greece. There were male-male relationships, however the "Marriage" between a man and a woman was a seperate situation. Again this insitution has been used as a way to transfer power, ensure heirs, and act as a reproductive unit, even as a diplomatic tool. It hasn't always been about male dominance either.

So you belive the historical definition of marriage is what we should stick with?

Well in that case the husband owns the wife and all the property. And then you should know that you have to marry into the same race and same religion otherwise it is not "historical" nor "Traditional"

This has been covered countless times before, but I'll give it another go.

The thing is, it's really a moot point and a waste of time to deal with. "Marriage" has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. From a legal standpoint, it's a very, very dangerous business to go changing legal definitions, because one could get away with things they normally couldn't that way. Sticking to the traditional definition, then, gays cannot be "married".

Certainly, they can enjoy the legal benefits of marriage (and I support that, BTW). And, if you are really bound and determined to get the word "marriage" in there, you could call it a "Marriage-Union" or a "Marriage-in-Law". But if we're going to stick with historical definitions, then you cannot redefine the word "marriage", regardless of the nobility of intentions.