20 States ban gay marriages

but semantics is not my specialty, i prefer military history

however i do believe the word slavery is still around and has the same meaning.

i didn't take anything out of context, i used your full post and replied to it fully, however thats beside the point, for every negative one you can think of there are dozens you follow without a conscience thought to the contrary

Maybe you're just afraid homosexuals will end up better at marriage than heterosexuals?

your comparing me to objects ;P besides that its not a red herring, i have studied ancient cultures, however its not my primary field either, much like doctors who have particular specialties

well the weddings would definately be better anyways.

... i said its traditionaly man+woman= marriage (shortened slightly) and that i would rather have that term used for that meaning. you have to admit that after 2000 plus years the word marriage(including its translations) has taken on a set meaning. i would like to see that preserved. i guess its cause i'm a historian by profession.

Historians can, historically, spell and use proper grammar.

No see, I am not talking about positive traditions, and traditions aren't laws. Laws are sometimes based on tradition, and I will state that I think those are the ones that need to be scrutinized the most, because of precisely what you are saying - we accept things just because they have been done for some length of time. Because something has been done for a length of time does not make it right, and that is what i was getting at.

But anyway, you want to dwell in the past, so be it - I prefer an evolving body of law which eventually affords all rights afforded some, to all (adults).

free speech is an american tradition

free speech is an american tradition, so it needs to be scrutinized? you are implying traditions are negative. the rules for language is tradition, (like putting periods at the end of sentences.)

With due respect, I'm puzzled by this "historian by profession" thing. I know a few historians by profession, and they generally aren't the kind to engage in such sloppy reasoning or careless generalizations. Nor would they try to defend their position with rhetorical statements (although they might throw a few in to pepper thier evidence). Your definition of tradition is flawed - only because traditions are neither static nor necessarily positive, and exist for reasons that have to do with the preservation of power and order, and not the "moral good" or "logical order" of society. Traditions are constantly in a state of evolution, and reflect the advantages of new relationships between diverse groups in society. From what I'm able to gather, most professional historians, anthropologists, and sociologists wouldn't make such a fundamental mistake.

Perhaps you're a graduate student? (I'm reminded of Matt Damon's character totally destroying a Harvard history graduate student in the film Good Will Hunting, by pointing out that he'd overlooked the definitive arguments in Gordon Wood's book....) Or perhaps you're an instructor in a billybob religious college? or the local historian/librarian for Macon County or somewhere else?

I'm sorry, I can't resist - "Pheer me, I'm an historian!" I nearly choked on my glass of port....

free speech is an american tradition, so it needs to be scrutinized? you are implying traditions are negative. the rules for language is tradition, (like putting periods at the end of sentences.)

....this is a website forum, not a dissertation or a lecture. not my fault you don't understand the sheer scope of how our traditions shape your daily life. and i merely added my profession to explain my slant on the topic of preserving the meaning of the term "marriage"

The consensus among historians is that republican Rome, like classical Greece, was tolerant of same-sex relationships. imperial Rome considered some of them marriages. The best documented are the same-sex marriages of Rome's emperors. Roman historian Suetonius reported, disapprovingly, that the first-century emperor Nero "went through a wedding ceremony with [Sporus]-dowry, bridal veil and all-which the whole Court attended; then brought him home and treated him as a wife. He dressed Sporus in fine clothes normally worn by an Empress and took him in his own litter not only to every Greek assize and fair, but actually through the Street of Images at Rome, kissing him amorously now and then." Later, a freedman, Pythagorus, "married [Nero]-just as he himself had married Sporus-and on his wedding night he imitated the screams and moans of a girl being deflowered." Dio Cassius, a historian and contemporary of Suetonius, confirmed Nero's marriages to these men and also provided a reliable account of the same-sex and opposite-sex marriages of third-century emperor Elagabalus. Indeed, it was said that men seeking advancement in Elagabalus's imperial court rushed to marry other men to curry favor with the emperor. Second-century emperor Hadrian was renowned throughout the ancient world for his wise and moderate reign and for his love of the tragic youth Antinous. Though not Hadrian's spouse, Antinous attained the status of legend and was commemorated for generations through sculpture, architecture, painting, and literature.

http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html

zOMG Same-sex marriages in antiquity? Say it isn't so!



EDIT*** Kendra, if I wasn't already kennelled, I'd marry you

http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameex1b.html

zOMG Same-sex marriages in antiquity? Say it isn't so!

But free speech is protected by law ;P, so no so much a traditional issue.

Wait for iiiiitt .... waaait for iiiiitt ...


... but but but ... they were HEATHENS and not my religion!

~or~

... but but but ... that isn't the good ole' US of *spits* A .. so we dun' take kindly to talk 'bout them 'round here.


... too late, beat you to it. Sorry .. couldn't wait.

On a side note, how come this thread has degenerated into questioning me, personally? I have never attacked anyone's character unless provoked.

thats right i don't care if your offended by giving you what you wanted, the legal rights of a heterosexual married couple. so please enlighten me as to how me agreeing that it needs to be done is offensive?