As You Like It - Men Becoming Women
|
|
Avawyn Muircastle
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 528
|
12-20-2008 17:50
From: Oryx Tempel "For example, in late medieval France, the term affrèrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin. The new "brothers" pledged to live together sharing 'un pain, un vin, et une bourse' -- one bread, one wine, and one purse. [...] The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: "All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other's legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés." Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . ."" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823110231.htmNow this one is interesting. Get more info on that! Though after reading this, this doesn't relate to freedom of an established religion. |
|
Ann Launay
Neko-licious™
Join date: 8 Aug 2006
Posts: 7,893
|
12-20-2008 17:50
From: Avawyn Muircastle I'm not so sure it was same sex marriage cuz I don't believe every webpage on the internet nor do I have time. So she gives you what you asked for and you promptly come up with reasons why it isn't, in fact, what you asked for? Interesting. From: someone I prefer libraries and I have free access to a university library. Maybe you should visit more often then.
_____________________
~Now Trout Re-Re-Re-Certified!~ From: someone I am bumping you to an 8.5 on the Official Trout Measuring Instrument of Sluttiness. You are an enigma - on the one hand a sweet, gentle, intelligent woman who we would like to wrap up in our arms and protect, and on the other, a temptress to whom we would like to do all sorts of unmentionable things.
Congratulations and shame on you! You are a bit of a slut.
|
|
Avawyn Muircastle
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 528
|
12-20-2008 17:52
From: Love Hastings Are you completely ignorant? Satanism is not in any way pagan. There are no "murder sacrifice rites" in any organized Satanic group (like the Church of Satan, for example). You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. At all. Yes there are Satanists who believe in sacrificial murder. |
|
Love Hastings
#66666
Join date: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 4,094
|
12-20-2008 17:53
From: Avawyn Muircastle Yes there are Satanists who believe in sacrificial murder. You are out of your tree. There might me some psychopaths who believe in "sacrifical murder," but at that point, Satanism is nothing more than an incidental. Good God you amaze. |
|
Avawyn Muircastle
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 528
|
12-20-2008 17:54
From: Avawyn Muircastle Now this one is interesting. Get more info on that! But then again the above is not a religion you are citing. |
|
Ann Launay
Neko-licious™
Join date: 8 Aug 2006
Posts: 7,893
|
12-20-2008 17:54
From: Avawyn Muircastle Yes there are Satanists who believe in sacrificial murder. And there are murderers who claim to be Christian too. Doesn't mean they're representative of the whole lot of you.
_____________________
~Now Trout Re-Re-Re-Certified!~ From: someone I am bumping you to an 8.5 on the Official Trout Measuring Instrument of Sluttiness. You are an enigma - on the one hand a sweet, gentle, intelligent woman who we would like to wrap up in our arms and protect, and on the other, a temptress to whom we would like to do all sorts of unmentionable things.
Congratulations and shame on you! You are a bit of a slut.
|
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
12-20-2008 17:54
From: Avawyn Muircastle I have a little time, explain the difference. Your post said Congress would make no law INTERFERING with an established religion and the amendment actually says Congress will make no law RESPECTING an established religion. Definition of 'interfering' ================== To be or create a hindrance or obstacle To intervene or intrude in the affairs of others; meddle. Definition of 'respecting' ================= With respect to Concerning Do you truly NOT see a difference between those two? And if you do not, can I please ask what tests you took for this to be true: From: Avawyn Muircastle .... Most of the people I know including myself average over 110 to 125. LOL Or even higher than 125 is the median for my family. ....
_____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil
Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?
~Mark Twain~
Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on.
♥♥♥
Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell
|
|
Avawyn Muircastle
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 528
|
12-20-2008 18:02
From: LittleMe Jewell Your post said Congress would make no law INTERFERING with an established religion and the amendment actually says Congress will make no law RESPECTING an established religion.
Definition of 'interfering'
==================
To be or create a hindrance or obstacle
To intervene or intrude in the affairs of others; meddle.
Definition of 'respecting'
=================
With respect to
Concerning
Do you truly NOT see a difference between those two? And if you do not, can I please ask what tests you took for this to be true: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The second half of the sectence to make no law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof pretty much means shall not meddle nor interfere. Splitting hairs. |
|
Cael Merryman
Brain in Neutral
Join date: 5 Dec 2007
Posts: 380
|
12-20-2008 18:02
From: Avawyn Muircastle Yes there are Satanists who believe in sacrificial murder. Well, yes there are some Satanist cults that believe in sacrificial murder. Two points: 1) You have to identify somewhat loosely some of their deities as Satan, but it isn't really a good match as they aren't Christians, and more prone to have deities of dual natures. 2) You have to include chickens as them that would be 'murdered'. Oh, the horror. (I apologize in advance to all those that see this as terribly unsympathetic to chickens, them as I have wrung the necks of in the many numbers*) *chickens, not chicken sympathizers. My granddad figure if you wouldn't do the deed, you didn't eat the chicken.** **My granddad was fully capable of wringing the necks of chicken sympathizers that came between him and his meal. He, however, was a Christian, not a Satanist. |
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
12-20-2008 18:03
From: Avawyn Muircastle .... but you cannot murder anything just because that is what you believe. ... Actually, there is debate and court cases going on right now about whether or not some folks in America of the Islamic religion can or can not murder animals for their religious beliefs.
_____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil
Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?
~Mark Twain~
Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on.
♥♥♥
Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell
|
|
Love Hastings
#66666
Join date: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 4,094
|
12-20-2008 18:04
Oh, she meant chickens. Gotcha. Better to stick with the blood and flesh of Christ.
|
|
Oryx Tempel
Registered User
Join date: 8 Nov 2006
Posts: 7,663
|
12-20-2008 18:05
From: Avawyn Muircastle Now this one is interesting. Get more info on that!
Though after reading this, this doesn't relate to freedom of an established religion. Who cares? You asked for examples of homosexual marriage contracts. Not "homosexual marriage contracts relating to freedom of established religions," which makes no logical sense whatsoever. |
|
Cael Merryman
Brain in Neutral
Join date: 5 Dec 2007
Posts: 380
|
12-20-2008 18:06
From: Avawyn Muircastle "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The second half of the sectence to make no law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof pretty much means shall not meddle nor interfere. Splitting hairs. Geez, no. It was written in reaction to the established religions in other nations at the time and was written by a body with many that were deists or Christians heavily influenced by enlightened literature of the time. It meant absolutely, no question, that there would be no such thing as an established church or churches and that any religion, any, could be freely practiced. And now get a real copy of the real Constitution and also see the relevant section about how religion could not be a criteria for serving in Congress. Its all related and there to be read. |
|
LittleMe Jewell
...........
Join date: 8 Oct 2007
Posts: 11,319
|
12-20-2008 18:12
From: Avawyn Muircastle "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The second half of the sectence to make no law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof pretty much means shall not meddle nor interfere. Splitting hairs. Not 'prohibiting the free exercise' of religion is also not the same thing as actually 'interfering' in it. One is passive and the other is active. From: Avawyn Muircastle ... Splitting hairs. It might be, but you did say: From: Avawyn Muircastle Present this argument as you would in a court of law. And a court of law would split the hairs. Regardless, allowing gay marriage is not interfering in religion any more than allowing drinking and gambling - though many religions would like to stop those activities as well. Also, I remember that when I was a little girl, the stores were all closed on Sunday and that was specifically a leftover from decades of the concept of not working on Sunday because religions considered it to be a holy day. However, that has since changed because our laws about whether or not a store can be open, and whether or not someone can work on a Sunday, should not have anything to do with what a religion believes about the day. In the same light, our laws about marriage should not have anything to do with what any religion believes about marriage.
_____________________
♥♥♥
-Lil
Why do you sit there looking like an envelope without any address on it?
~Mark Twain~
Optimism is denial, so face the facts and move on.
♥♥♥
Lil's Yard Sale / Inventory Cleanout: http://slurl.com/secondlife/Triggerfish/52/27/22
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/littleme_jewell
|
|
Avawyn Muircastle
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jul 2008
Posts: 528
|
12-20-2008 18:13
From: Ann Launay So she gives you what you asked for and you promptly come up with reasons why it isn't, in fact, what you asked for? Interesting.
Maybe you should visit more often then. Actually, I've been in this debate on other forums for almost three years. So I've been there done that with web research. I appreciate it if it's from a dot org website such as what another poster posted from torah.org. Trust me after three years in this debate, there are a lot of retarded webpages published on the internet as anyone who can write html code can publish a webpage. It's a vast run around on the net to get adequate information. And I'm done participating in this topic. I have unanswered questions I want to address the court about, some of which I posted in this thread. If you have questions, I suggest you contact your state representatives. |
|
Oryx Tempel
Registered User
Join date: 8 Nov 2006
Posts: 7,663
|
12-20-2008 18:14
LOL - I give up. I'm going out for a bacon cheeseburger and a beer.   |
|
Oryx Tempel
Registered User
Join date: 8 Nov 2006
Posts: 7,663
|
12-20-2008 18:15
From: Avawyn Muircastle Actually, I've been in this debate on other forums for almost three years. So I've been there done that with web research. I appreciate it if it's from a dot org website such as what another poster posted from torah.org. That was me, actually. My first collection of posts regarding pre-Christian marriage contracts were ALL from universities and/or "official" websites. |
|
Skell Dagger
Smitten
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 1,885
|
12-20-2008 18:16
_____________________
It always ends in chickens...
Store blog - http://primflints.wordpress.com/
Inworld - http://slurl.com/secondlife/Jindalrae/21/25/442
XStreet - http://tinyurl.com/primflints
Photos - http://www.flickr.com/photos/skelldagger/
|
|
Love Hastings
#66666
Join date: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 4,094
|
12-20-2008 18:19
|
|
Daros Jewell
Lolcat ov teh day
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 126
|
12-20-2008 18:19
From: Avawyn Muircastle Well no, I said if all types of sexual intercourse are the same does that give a heterosexual man the same right to say that anal intercourse is also heterosexual consummation and/or are one in the same as penile/vaginal intercourse during their sexual relationship called marriage even if the woman says "no"? Hey Avawyn, if you want to consummate your marriage by taking it up the butt on your wedding night, go right ahead. Who's gonna stop you? You might be shocked to realize this, but most of the sane world doesn't give a damn what people do on their wedding nights.
_____________________
I r in lurv
|
|
Cael Merryman
Brain in Neutral
Join date: 5 Dec 2007
Posts: 380
|
12-20-2008 18:20
From: Avawyn Muircastle Actually, I've been in this debate on other forums for almost three years. So I've been there done that with web research. I appreciate it if it's from a dot org website such as what another poster posted from torah.org. Trust me after three years in this debate, there are a lot of retarded webpages published on the internet as anyone who can write html code can publish a webpage. It's a vast run around on the net to get adequate information.
And I'm done participating in this topic. I have unanswered questions I want to address the court about, some of which I posted in this thread.
If you have questions, I suggest you contact your state representatives. Well, I will bow to your knowledge of retarded web sites. And my state representative and I have had long conversations about gay marriage laws. Any and all the points you have brought up rarely, if ever, did in our conversations. With luck, you won't have to live much of your life in the U.S. in a period not controlled by those Established Religions of yours. We do, however, have hope for the next generation... |
|
Ann Launay
Neko-licious™
Join date: 8 Aug 2006
Posts: 7,893
|
12-20-2008 18:29
From: Avawyn Muircastle "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The second half of the sectence to make no law prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof pretty much means shall not meddle nor interfere. Splitting hairs. Wait, didn't someone already address this? Oh! It was ME! From: Ann Launay <snip> if a homosexual couple wants to go down to the courthouse and get married, that doesn't involve your religion at all and consequently doesn't prohibit "the free exercise thereof." 
_____________________
~Now Trout Re-Re-Re-Certified!~ From: someone I am bumping you to an 8.5 on the Official Trout Measuring Instrument of Sluttiness. You are an enigma - on the one hand a sweet, gentle, intelligent woman who we would like to wrap up in our arms and protect, and on the other, a temptress to whom we would like to do all sorts of unmentionable things.
Congratulations and shame on you! You are a bit of a slut.
|
|
Daros Jewell
Lolcat ov teh day
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 126
|
12-20-2008 18:32
From: Avawyn Muircastle How does marriage predate every Christian religion out there? Because the Pharaohs had wives.
_____________________
I r in lurv
|
|
Daros Jewell
Lolcat ov teh day
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 126
|
12-20-2008 18:36
From: Avawyn Muircastle And as to your last point, of course the laws of the land have a right to interfere in your bedroom as you put it, though you may mean bed as in sex. You do not have a right to have a child in there, nor an animal, nor your sister or brother, to name a few. And how does gay sex between 2 consenting adults equate to beastiality, child abuse, and incest? What's the relation here?
_____________________
I r in lurv
|
|
Daros Jewell
Lolcat ov teh day
Join date: 26 Jun 2007
Posts: 126
|
12-20-2008 18:41
From: Avawyn Muircastle I believe homosexual marriage infringes upon the rights of the First Amendment You means mai sexxorrs haz powwerz destroy relijuns? YAY! Hey Skell, I has consekrated penii of powwer thingie now! Come enjoyzz!
_____________________
I r in lurv
|
