Republican politician's moving speech in favor of gay marriage.

[Boris Godunov]

Not to mention that same-sex marriages go back to ancient times, marriages used to be about a contractual property arrangement, the Christian church didn't start officially sanctioning marriages until the 1500s, etc. And that marriages could, traditionally, be between cousins and involve kids as young as 12.

[Aeson]

(I am very pro-interracial relationships/marriages, I just thought I would put it out there since some of you do not know me. I am just trying to say that one should understand ones opponents and not demonize them.)

No, the opponents of interacial marriage should be demonized, regardless of what BS they trot out to try to justify their stupid position.

[idiot]Yes, if we can just keep their parents from being able to marry, it will be so much better for their kids! And if we can continue to reinforce racist stigmas against them at the same time, all the better![/idiot]

[Barnabas]

Which ancient society had gay marriage? And I don't mean owning a male slave or eunuch whom you could contractually **** as much as you wanted.

[Hauldren Collider]

He might be referring to ancient greek lover boys. As far as I know though, there was never marriage.

[Boris Godunov]

Which ancient society had gay marriage? And I don't mean owning a male slave or eunuch whom you could contractually **** as much as you wanted.

Greece, China and Rome, among others, probably. Not widespread, of course, but there is documentation that they did happen. And apparently it was enough of a common occurrence in ancient Rome that once Christianity held sway, the emperor Constantius II issued an edict banning the practice on pain of death. At least two earlier pagan emperors (Nero, Elagabalus) are reputed to have taken both male and female spouses.

[giblets]

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, 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 a same-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

[Jon Miller]

No, the opponents of interacial marriage should be demonized, regardless of what BS they trot out to try to justify their stupid position.

[idiot]Yes, if we can just keep their parents from being able to marry, it will be so much better for their kids! And if we can continue to reinforce racist stigmas against them at the same time, all the better![/idiot]

There is a big different between thinking/knowing someone is wrong and demonizing them.

Demonizing a person is almost always wrong, unless they are literally hitler.

JM

[Uncle Sparky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

MARRIAGE HAS ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN

If its on Wiki, it must be true.

In other news, the new Guinness record holders for the longest kiss are both male.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/relations...r-embrace.html

[MrFun]

Then they are probably racists... The "it's too hard on the children/marriage" excuse is just BS.

agreed

[MrFun]

What if I have a religious belief that Jews are an inferior people because they do not believe in Jesus Christ?

Does that mean that it's not that I'm anti-Semitic, but that it's a matter of faith for me?

[MrFun]

I think Pax held the belief here.

I don't think it is the case (too difficult) for the part of society I live in. I still have observed it as being more difficult for (in particular) some of the african-american+white marriages I have seen.

I could imagine it might have been much more so 40 years ago.

JM
(I am very pro-interracial relationships/marriages, I just thought I would put it out there since some of you do not know me. I am just trying to say that one should understand ones opponents and not demonize them.)

Often doing the right thing is not necessarily the easy thing to do. To marry someone you love, even if that person is of another race, is the right thing to do, regardless of the difficulties.

[Aeson]

There is a big different between thinking/knowing someone is wrong and demonizing them.

Demonizing a person is almost always wrong, unless they are literally hitler.

By "demonizing" you were referring to calling someone a racist for opposing interracial marriage with the given justification. It's perfectly fine to call them racist. At best they're using idiotic reasoning to support racial discrimination. More likely, they're using such absurd reasoning to try to justify their racist prejudices.

(And there are many, many other cases besides Hitler who deserve to be called racist and have their racist ideas or support for racial discrimination pointed out.)

[MrFun]

fvcked up

[Jon Miller]

By "demonizing" you were referring to calling someone a racist for opposing interracial marriage with the given justification. It's perfectly fine to call them racist. At best they're using idiotic reasoning to support racial discrimination. More likely, they're using such absurd reasoning to try to justify their racist prejudices.

(And there are many, many other cases besides Hitler who deserve to be called racist and have their racist ideas or support for racial discrimination pointed out.)

I can disagree with someone and not call them a racist.

I prefer to keep 'racist' for those who are actually racist. Who deserve it.

JM

[Aeson]

I can disagree with someone and not call them a racist.

I prefer to keep 'racist' for those who are actually racist. Who deserve it.

So... Just Hitler then?

People who oppose interracial marriage definitely deserve it.