I don't know :thinking. This whole 'issue' is like the 'freedom fries' thing in my opinion. Why waste the time and effort?
I don't really care, but at the marriage ceremony I wonder if they are going to say "person A, do you take person B to be your lawfully wedded person B?" :2razz:
People do realize this has nothing to do with the ceremony, right?
That was a joke, but I still wonder why they can't both be wives or husbands. Why the person A/person B (or whatever it is)?
You don't think their resistance to change in this case has to do with them seeing the tradition that they have always known, slipping away?
How could the old terms be accommodated? There is no clear equivalent to husband, wife, bride or groom in most gay couples.
1.)That's what forums are for...posting your opinions are they not?
2.)They had some of the same goals and some different ones, gaining rights for same sex couples... I posted links supporting this, it's history, it's a part of the sexual revolution, it was listed on a glbt history website. There's not much more to say on this, I've done the research since I was lucky enough to not be around during the 1970's, I get to read about it (no offense to those of you that were). Either way the information is there. Did you look at those sources I posted?
We're talking about the US and traditional marriage in the US. Gay marriage is new here, hence the resistance to change.
1.) yes just making sure you understand what you are posting because it definitely seemed like you thought you were posting a fact or something meaningful and logical. It was an opinion and nothing more.
2.) see the bolded stuff above? EXACTLY they were different movements very obviously distinguishable cause they had different goals. The KKK shares some goals with Christianity does that mean they are indistinguishable of course not.
you sources provide ZERO logic or fact to make them indistinguishable like i already said.
SOrry there just no logical or factual reason to have think the movements were the same movement and "indistinguishable"
by all means though again, when you have anything logical or factual to support your claim by all mean please provide.
Do you disagree that changing of traditional marriage in the US is a change and that people can be very resistant to change? Because that's all that I was saying.hence there is NO change for those people that share your opinion of what traditional marriage is, thats just a fact.
Do you disagree that changing of traditional marriage in the US is a change and that people can be very resistant to change? Because that's all that I was saying.
This is the kind of stuff that predicated the fall of the Roman empire. Watch for the legalization of having sex with children next.
Read a damned history book. The Romans were the most immoral during the height of Empire, and declined most steadily after Constantine converted to Christianity and took most of the Empire with him.
Why can't they be bride/bride or groom/groom? I don't understand why the terminology has to change when they could just be allowed to choose the combination of their choice.
There are numerous reasons the Roman Empire fell, I am concentrating on lack of morality because it is pertinent to this thread.
"Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire - Decline in Morals
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena."
Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
There are numerous reasons the Roman Empire fell, I am concentrating on lack of morality because it is pertinent to this thread.
"Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire - Decline in Morals
One of the main causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire was the Decline in Morals. The decline in morals, especially in the rich upper classes, nobility and the emperors, had a devastating impact on the Romans. Immoral and promiscuous sexual behaviour including adultery and orgies. Emperors such as Tiberius kept groups of young boys for his pleasure, incest by Nero who also had a male slave castrated so he could take him as his wife, Elagabalus who forced a Vestal Virgin into marriage, Commodus with his harems of concubines enraged Romans by sitting in the theatre or at the games dressed in a woman's garments. The decline in morals also effected the lower classes and slaves. Religious festivals such as Saturnalia and Bacchanalia where sacrifices, ribald songs, lewd acts and sexual promiscuity were practised. Bestiality and other lewd and sexually explicit acts were exhibited in the Colosseum arena to amuse the mob. Brothels and forced prostitution flourished. Widespread gambling on the chariot races and gladiatorial combats. Massive consumption of alcohol. The sadistic cruelty towards both man and beasts in the arena."
Causes for the Fall of the Roman Empire
First of all, I would heavily suggest you look for better sources than a .info page. If you're interested in Roman history, I would suggest starting with Livy's On Rome. That should carry you up to the reign of Augustus. From there, Zosimus is a pretty solid source, and Ammianus Marcellinus is very heavy source of information. If you want a more digestible, modern source I can suggest you to a dozen sources that are more reliable than a .info site.
Now first of all, not all history sources are equal. Imagine if you got your history from the National Enquirer. Some of the things you're mentioning are about that reliable. But let's say that at least some of those debaucheries happened, and some certainly did. Under Emperors like Tiberius and Nero, the borders of Rome expanded. In fact, Rome reached its greatest extent under Trajan, who was well in that debased period you mention. Now I'm linking to a map of Rome during the Tetrarchy, shortly before the Constantine converted to Christianity and did away with the excessive sin. After Constantine and Christianity, the Western Empire fell within about 150 years. The Eastern Empire took a number of centuries, but it slowly withered into nothingness. Can you really blame the "decline in morals" when Rome was at its most powerful? Remember, it declined under Christians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Tetrarchy_map3.jpg/300px-Tetrarchy_map3.jpg
I have to admit that things like this sadden me. Its not that I object to "progress", its just that there is no need for something like this.
The "old" terms could still have been accomodated, this sort of thing is just inflamatory really.
As i stated earlier in this thread I have read quite a few books on Rome and see similarities to their demise and what is going on in America today. The site and quote from it I posted sum up Romes morality issues pretty well for this venue. If you disagree that morality or should I say lack thereof had anything to do with the fall of Rome that is fine but it is one of the many theories out there. Rome fell for a myriad of reasons and IMO their decedent culture was one of them. A society where deviant behavior becomes the norm is doomed and I see us heading in that direction.
Do you disagree that changing of traditional marriage in the US is a change and that people can be very resistant to change? Because that's all that I was saying.
Everything I said about the sexual revolution is factual and I provided the sources to back it up. It's all history, so again did you even look at the sources?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?