.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
#They have to be able to marry in exactly the same legal sense as heterosexuals so that all the established legal and cultural structures apply#
would it be too much to argue with Mr DAVE "is there room in that cupboard for two" DYER that what he calls "cultural structures" have been around since the days of the first marriage...
Barring the surprise anthropological discovery or two, it's impossible to say that the first marriages were one man and one woman. It is equally likely that they were some type of polygamous marriage.
Dan
and looking just at the nature of it, it's also more possible, actually most probable, that the first marriage was one man and one woman. See how that works? ![]()
But marriage is a social relationship for the most part. The details of early human societies are beyond knowing at this point. It's quite possible that a variety of arrangements were in use in contemporaneous early societies.
Dan
..roommates have more fun !
Too often, 'marriage' is like ordering in a new
restaurant for the first time. You see what someone
else is being served, ...and realize you should have
waited and looked around.
He claims to be Republican. Any way to check the voter roles in Houston to see if it's true or not? Sounds like a Democrat in Republican clothes.
Occasionally you're bound to run into one who has an open mind. It happens. Don't worry; he's still in the minority on your side of the aisle.![]()
I used to argue the points about homosexuality and "gay marriage" years ago at CNN and NYT forums, and it was almost laughable how many "posers" would popup claiming to be a "compassionate conservative" or "moderate Republican" and write something so completely similar to this. More often or not the very culprit doing it was eventually unmasked through phraseology. Of course when caught at it, their excuse was about as valid as Sharpton's on the Brawley non-rape, "it could have been...". The gay groups are going all over the place, writing in and pretending to be "understanding" people of every political persuasion, passing themselves off as someone else, just to distort the public perception of their sinful lifestyle becoming more acceptable to the public. One thing I've noted is that so many of them have spent enough years lying about their sexuality before "coming out", they seem to find it only to easy to engage in lying all the time now when it suits their purpose.
I just e-mailed him and asked him if he'd be interested in commenting on your suggestion that he might be deliberately misrepresenting his party affiliation. Let's see if he responds.
Don't know what his motivation on the gay "marriage" issue is then. Maybe a close family member or friend that he doesn't want to offend.