Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )
   Mobile App






Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Bush Fighting Gay Marriage, Do we need a constitutional amendment?
Bookmark and Share
emerald-eyedwanderer 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 06:06 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



The Gypsy Artist
Group Icon

Group: Celtic Princess
Posts: 990
Joined: 23-Apr-2004
ZodiacHawthorn

Realm: Wherever life takes me.

female





QUOTE (Rowan @ 09-Jun-2006, 01:23 PM)
To emerald-eyedwanderer:

No offense, but I am a Catholic, yet I too try to be open-minded. Even a non-religious person can be very narrow-minded. I've met some who are so fixed they'd get in a rage with you over the smallest thing. But yes its sadly true, some religious people are so close-minded and that's a sad thing. It makes the Church seem like an ogre, a dragon, instead of the loving Mother the way God ordained her to be.

Sorry I didn't mean to make it sound that you couldn't be both, one of my heros was Mother Teresa. And I respect your live and let live statement very much. And I understand the value of religion even though I don't agree with a lot of it, it's just sad when I hear it being used to further discrimination.


--------------------
Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

If you judge people you have no time to love them. ~Mother Teresa


Help Out

user posted image
PMEmail PosterUsers Website My Photo Album               View My Space Profile.
Top
emerald-eyedwanderer 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 06:16 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



The Gypsy Artist
Group Icon

Group: Celtic Princess
Posts: 990
Joined: 23-Apr-2004
ZodiacHawthorn

Realm: Wherever life takes me.

female





QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 09-Jun-2006, 11:05 AM)
I bet that women have to put up with a lot more crap from straight men hitting on them in lewd or disgusting ways then anyone has to owrry about from a gay person.

ha ha ha, so true, good point
PMEmail PosterUsers Website My Photo Album               View My Space Profile.
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 06:21 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





I see no reason to end this as long as we all remain civil. biggrin.gif


beer_mug.gif


--------------------
Hoka Hey!
The more Liberals I meet, the more I like my dogs!
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 07:42 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Dogshirt @ 09-Jun-2006, 06:21 PM)
I see no reason to end this as long as we all remain civil. biggrin.gif


beer_mug.gif

Hear hear!


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 07:45 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (CelticCoalition @ 09-Jun-2006, 01:51 PM)
If you are saying that a person who is gay needs to behave in a manner that you approve of by law, then you are judging that person.  You are judging that behavior to warrant being made illegal and you are judging the person ingaging in that activity as unlawful.

I do not believe that laws in this country should be made simply because someone doesn't agree with the behavior.  Notice I am saying simply, as in that is the only reason.  There has yet to be made a non moral or religious reason for banning gay marriage.  There's been a lot of talk about it being disgusting, or ungodly, etc. However, this is not the criteria used to make laws in this country.  If it was, we would be a theocracy.

Just because people don't like or agree with something doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Laws are always made because people don't agree with a behavior aren't they? To make a decision concerning legality requires making a judgement, often a moral one. Although moral choice doesn't require religion necessarily as its requisite standard, it does require both a standard and a choice, and they are made because "someone" doesn't agree with a behavior, and disgreement or even disgust is the reason - murder, rape, theft, assault etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong Celtic, but I don't think your complaint is that laws are made because someone doesn't agree with a behavior, but that you don't agree that this specific behavior warrants legal restriction and disagree with the religious justifications that are sometimes given for those restrictions.

I have some questions of my own. What's so great about homosexual behavior that it warrants legalized marriage and the social entrenchment that institution would give it? The argument that I've heard most is that its a matter of human rights. Yet I wonder if that argument isn't disingenuous. Is human rights a smoke screen for social investiture and consecration? What standard for social infrastructure will we choose? I'm not interested how consenting adults have sex in private, but that's not what we're being asked to accept.

If the definition of a marriage is an individual human right, then why can't a man marry his horse? Why isn't a woman and her houseplant a marriage? Under what circumstances does the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want become irresponsible? Well there are many. What will our future be if we are willing to create it so inadvertently? Shouldn't more consideration be brought to bear than that? How can such choices be made independently of moral considerations? Even "what's good for the greatest number" assumes a moral standard of good. How can decisions which have collective effect be proported as solely individual?

The question is not whether homosexual behavior is illegal since a recent supreme court ruling made it basically unprosecutable between consenting adults, yet the social institution of marriage legitimizes it at a different, powerful and perhaps irreversible level. I'm not asking why shouldn't it be so, but why should it? Why are those who are opposed to it always asked to justify their position rather than those who want it? Shouldn't advocates of decisions which have social impact be asked to justify why they should be enacted? Shouldn't better reasons be offered than flippant ones like "everyone should be able to do what they want"?

Seems like this issue has generated more posts and passions than most on this board, which is an interesting occurrance itself. Thanks for reading some of the questions I've been mulling over.



--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Dogshirt 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 08:15 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Lord of the Northern Plains
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,400
Joined: 12-Oct-2003
ZodiacElder

Realm: Washington THE State

male





Let me throw out a thought that one of the guys on my crew came up with the other day. "Sure let them marry, why should only straights be miserable?" wink.gif


beer_mug.gif
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
CelticCoalition 
Posted: 09-Jun-2006, 09:29 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 561
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
ZodiacReed


male





QUOTE (Antwn @ 09-Jun-2006, 06:45 PM)
Laws are always made because people don't agree with a behavior aren't they? To make a decision concerning legality requires making a judgement, often a moral one. Although moral choice doesn't require religion necessarily as its requisite standard, it does require both a standard and a choice, and they are made because "someone" doesn't agree with a behavior, and disgreement or even disgust is the reason - murder, rape, theft, assault etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong Celtic, but I don't think your complaint is that laws are made because someone doesn't agree with a behavior, but that you don't agree that this specific behavior warrants legal restriction and disagree with the religious justifications that are sometimes given for those restrictions.

I have some questions of my own. What's so great about homosexual behavior that it warrants legalized marriage and the social entrenchment that institution would give it? The argument that I've heard most is that its a matter of human rights. Yet I wonder if that argument isn't disingenuous. Is human rights a smoke screen for social investiture and consecration? What standard for social infrastructure will we choose? I'm not interested how consenting adults have sex in private, but that's not what we're being asked to accept.

If the definition of a marriage is an individual human right, then why can't a man marry his horse? Why isn't a woman and her houseplant a marriage? Under what circumstances does the idea that people should be allowed to do what they want become irresponsible? Well there are many. What will our future be if we are willing to create it so inadvertently? Shouldn't more consideration be brought to bear than that? How can such choices be made independently of moral considerations? Even "what's good for the greatest number" assumes a moral standard of good. How can decisions which have collective effect be proported as solely individual?

The question is not whether homosexual behavior is illegal since a recent supreme court ruling made it basically unprosecutable between consenting adults, yet the social institution of marriage legitimizes it at a different, powerful and perhaps irreversible level. I'm not asking why shouldn't it be so, but why should it? Why are those who are opposed to it always asked to justify their position rather than those who want it? Shouldn't advocates of decisions which have social impact be asked to justify why they should be enacted? Shouldn't better reasons be offered than flippant ones like "everyone should be able to do what they want"?

Seems like this issue has generated more posts and passions than most on this board, which is an interesting occurrance itself. Thanks for reading some of the questions I've been mulling over.

Alrighty...I'll try and answer these questions from my point of view.

Laws are not usually made because people don't agree with the behavior. I could see the argument being made for so called victimless crimes (prostitution, drugs, and other "vice" crimes"). However, the ones you mentioned have other elements to them that go beyond simply moral disagreement or disgust. Rape, murder, theft, assault, etc all have elements all involve doing something to another without their consent. They also involve harm to another. They involve elements of avoiding chaos. They are also behaviors that are forced upon someone else by another. Gay marriage doesn't involve any of these elements.

I say you are wrong in your assessment of my opinion in that laws are not simply made because people disagree with the behavior. I do agree that I do not believe this behavior warrants legal restriction. I do not disagree with the religious justifications so much as I do not believe they are adquate to warrant making this behavior illegal.

There is nothing "Great" about homosexual behavior. What is so "Great" about heterosexual behavior that it warrants legalized marriage? Wouldn't it be enough to have spiritual marriage without the State being involved? I really don't see what people have to accept either. My behavior is not changed based on whether or not other people get married. Nor is my life affected. In fact, the only community I see being affected by gay marriage is gays. I have yet to be convinced of what danger gay marriage holds for people. I only see people who think it is wrong.

The argument of why can't a person marry an animal or a plant or other inanimate objects is unnecessary. Gay marriage involves the union of two consenting adults. All these other things can neither sign legal documents or have legal standing. Besides that, the slippery slope argument isn't really valid. It can go either way. I mean, if gay marriage isn't made legal, what's to stop the government making other unions illegal based on class, race, education, etc? The issue is not poligamy or marriage to animals, it is gay marriage.

The what's good for the greater number argument doesn't fit either. Blacks and hispanics were a racial minority and it didn't really do much better for the majoirty of americans to abolish slavery or segregation. However, it was considered necessary at the time and the majority today would be appaled if these practices were brought back...at least I would hope so.

I'm sorry to say this, but being gay is not a reversable condition. It isn't a disease to be cured. The main reasons I see that gays wish to be married are to experience the same benefits that other married couples recieve. Discounted insurance, shared insurance between married individuals, having your spouse be responsible for life decisions should you be incapacitated, filing joint taxes, and any other number of benefits that come from a legal marriage.

Finally, this is the biggest distinction between both sides that I see. Those who wish to see gay marriage made illegal are trying to take certain rights and priviledges away from a group of people based on the lifestyle those people live. This lifestyle is a choice between consenting adults that has no direct ill effect on others around them. It is also been shown in most cases to not be a choice but a way a person is born. A gay person could no more choose not to be gay than someone born hunchback or otherwise deformed.

Those who wish to see gay marriage legalized wish to see an act only recognized by the government and the law. They are not asking individuals to agree with the behavior or approve anymore than interracial marriages. They are also wishing to see an act be legalized that does no harm to anyone and doesn't involve anyone who is not consenting. It only effects the two people involved in the wedding and allows them to enjoy the benefits of sharing their life with another humanbeing legally rather than have their relationship be veiwed as less valid than another couple's. Legalizing gay marriage takes nothing away from anybody else.

Those are my answers.


--------------------
user posted imageuser posted imageuser posted image
May those who love us love us
And those who don't love us
May God turn their hearts,
And if He doesn't turn their hearts,
May He turn their ankles,
So we'll know them by their limping.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 10-Jun-2006, 12:13 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





To begin I have to agree with CC. The answer to the "why SHOULD they not why SHOULDN'T they" question is more a matter of benifits than legal precedence. They want what all couples want. They want to know that their significant other is taken care of and that they will be taken care of back. In most medical situations the next of kin makes the decisions for a patient not able to make any themselves. Generally it is your partner, no matter what gender, that you tell you medical preferences to, they're usually the ones who know your wishes. Homosexual couples aren't allowed that right and the decisions are left to a more "appropriate" next of kin no matter how much or little they know of the patients wishes. What about insurance policies? If the patient dies the partner can not collect that money. Who does it go to? A different "family member" who perhaps doesn't agree with homosexuality and therefore refuses to give anything to the partner or help them out in any way? When did homosexuals become less than human? All they want is what every other human wants, nothing more, nothing less: the chance to take care of those they love. I really don't see why it is even an issue. You don't have to agree with the lifestyle but you can't make it illegal just because you don't like it.

Christians preach against pre-marital sex as well. Are you going to try and make THAT illegal next? It goes against your Gods book so it will have to be. We should also bring back stoning for adultary, because that's what they did in your bible.

I really don't think that religion has any place in this discussion or any of the kind because not everyone believes in the bible or the same religion. Just because YOU believe in it doesn't make you right and me wrong. I think the bible is just a man-made book with no more weight than the latest Nora Roberts novel. You think it holds the keys to heaven and the rules for human existance. But see, those are just opinions, not facts. You can no more prove that the bible is the key to heaven (if it even exists!) than I can prove it's not.

I also wanted to comment on the whole Christian persecution thing being the reason "americans" left England in the first place. Through my studies this last semester I found that the real reason they left was because they didn't think that the Church of Englan was "pure" enough, hence the term Puritan being applied to them. They felt that the Church was being a bit to lax in their theology and wanted to "clean it up". Women were not allowed any voice and were not to speak in church at all, for any reason whatsoever, they were to follow the rule of their husbans no matter what because he ALWAYS had the families best Christian interests at heart, and just about everything a person had they were to give to the church. There was no room for error in the Puritan community and even the slightest, smallest, teeniest of infraction would get you exiled at best and killed at worst. The entire trip across the water they were regailed of how they were God's chosen people, that they, and ONLY they knew what was right. They truly believed, when they got here and saw the Indians already here, that God had put them here specifically to be slaves to the Puritans. Whenever they fought with the Indians and won with little or not injuries or losses to their numbers it was God showing them, and the world, how chosen they were and everyone else was not. If they lost, God was telling them that they were in danger of losing that chosen status if they didn't become better christians. They weren't persecuted, they were fanatics who wanted to rule the world under the guise of God and his "word". They were VERY fond of quoting bible passages that backed up their point no matter how far they had to reach.

What it boils down to is this: since religion is a FAITH thing and not a FACT thing it should have absolutely no bearing on politics.

P.S. sorry...I rambled again!!! I'll try harder next time, honest I will! smile.gif


--------------------
Sonee

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke

"If there's a book you really want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." ~Toni Morrison
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 10-Jun-2006, 11:35 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE
What it boils down to is this: since religion is a FAITH thing and not a FACT thing it should have absolutely no bearing on politics


This is true, and honestly I have no idea why so many people feel the need to interject religion into this discussion. There have been many interesting comments on this topic, but once again I am compelled to agree with Antwn. The gay marriage issue will most definitely be decided on the moral and ethical beliefs of the legislators, regardless of how it is eventually spun. And, like Antwn said:
QUOTE
...moral choice doesn't require religion necessarily as its requisite standard, it does require both a standard and a choice, and they are made because "someone" doesn't agree with a behavior...


The collective of atheists (non-religious if you will) in the legislative body of government will also have their say. There will undoubtedly be--of these non-religious--a voice against gay marriage (or a yes against a ban if you prefer). Are we all to assume that any voice against gay marriage is based on religious belief?

Lastly, a comment was made earlier, and one I have heard over and over, that people are born gay. Well if you study child psychology, people are born with a proclivity to be a lot of things. There is a natural tendency for children to lie, steal, hurt, or even kill. These are natural behaviors to an extent. Simply saying a person was born gay does not make homosexuality normal or socially acceptable. That is where parenting comes in. Like it or not, parents are largely responsible for correcting the wrong behavior of their children, and some of this correction comes about as a result of the child's observations rather than actual tutelage. But is this supposed to be the fatal blow to homosexuality? No. It is to express that behavior, including sexual behavior, is often taught. I personally teach my children that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. I was also taught this. When we leave it up to our children to decide everything for themselves, there is no telling how they will turn out. Even when you teach a child that stealing is wrong, you will never know that one day they might not decide to steal a car. The point is, assigning the "born that way" title to homosexuals is not enough to make gay marriage a "right."


By the way Sonee, have you ever done any research on revisionist history?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
MacEoghainn 
Posted: 10-Jun-2006, 01:27 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Fear-leanmhainn an Rėgh
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,949
Joined: 18-Jan-2004
ZodiacHazel

Realm: Cape Coral, Florida, USA, Planet Earth

male





Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "marriage": 1. State of being husband and wife

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
defines the word "marriage": 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

There are also some other definitions associated with the word (but the ones concerning Gay or Same-Sex marriage are of recent vintage and, in my opinion, the result of fringe elements in society trying to gain (force) acceptance by altering our common language and therefore the debate through "Political Correctness"). The two definitions I listed above are, and have been, the accepted definition of "marriage" in the USA, and most of the western world, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

My personal opinion of government involvement in the institution of marriage is that there should be none; Federal, State, County, Local, whatever... still none. Most marriage and divorce laws in the various states are highly gender biased (toward the female) and represent a major government infringement in the rights of their citizens. The only logical argument that I can see for government involvement in "marriage" is the fact that heterosexual couples, where the female partner is of child bearing age, can, and do, produce offspring. Since you can't "abort" the little "crumb-snatchers" after they're born I can see where the government (ie: the community) might have some input in insuring that, in the event of the dissolution of the marriage, that the children be cared for by the parents and don't become wards of the state (after all, isn't every thing we do suppose to be "for the Children"). In matters of property those issues should be decided by any legal documents agreed to by the parties before/during the union or by common law, the same as in any other property dispute.

Since the chances of that happening are "slim and none" we are left with the fact that the legal term "marriage" is not going to go away. This brings us back to the argument at hand. Should "marriage" (the legal definition) be defined as marriage between a man and a women, and the Constitution amended to state the same? Contrary to the way this debate is leaning in this thread the vast majority of voters, when given the opportunity to vote, agree with President.

I guess if you believe in a world where judges make the law, not the elected representatives of the people, then you are probably against a Constitutional Amendment. If you are like me and have a hard time accepting that some un-elected people dressed in black robes can dictate to State legislatures what laws they'll pass (Massachusetts) or strike down the peoples vote on a State Constitutional Amendment (Iowa) so as to impose their personal or political opinions on all of us then you are for this amendment being sent to the states for ratification (or rejection) just as a matter of principal.

MacE

PS: Following the example of my kinsman Shadows in various other threads in this forum, "This is all I am going to say in this thread" (to whichever smartty-pants that thought it; Yes, I promise! tongue.gif ).


--------------------
MacE
AKA
Steve Ewing

I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. Job 19:25

"Non sibi sed patriae!"

Reviresco (I grow strong again)
Clan MacEwen motto

Audaciter (Audacity)
My Ewing Family Motto
(descendants of Baron William Ewing of Glasgow, born about 1630)

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." from "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by Vegetius

PMEmail PosterUsers Website My Photo Album               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 10-Jun-2006, 02:53 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Your only contribution Steve was a good one. Well said!
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 11-Jun-2006, 09:31 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





By the way Sonee, have you ever done any research on revisionist history?

My field of study is History. When I am finished with school I will have a Phd in History (admitidly my area of interest is midievil history with a focus on Ireland and Scotland, but I have to learn about History in general as well.) As to revisionist history, in what manner are you asking the question? Are you suggesting that I am rewriting history to further my own ends or that I am rewriting it with more accurate information?
I can assure you that my information is accurate. It is derived from documents and correspondance from the original settlers, both from the Mayflower and also the Arbella which arrived on these shores in 1630. I also studied accounts by decendants of these settlers such as Increase Mather, Cotton Mathers son. Again, what is the purpose of the question?

I have a question to pose myself. It is to anyone who can, or will answer. Are there still states that recognize common law marraige? Could a homosexual couple invoke that law? I don't know exactly what it's wording is, or if it even has any "official" wording, but most states that DO recognize common law also grant the benifits of "legal marraige" to both partners in this type of arrangement. Could that be a "solution" to this problem?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Swanny 
Posted: 11-Jun-2006, 10:17 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,108
Joined: 08-Jun-2003
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Two Rivers, Alaska

male





QUOTE (Sonee @ 11-Jun-2006, 05:31 AM)
Are there still states that recognize common law marraige? Could a homosexual couple invoke that law? I don't know exactly what it's wording is, or if it even has any "official" wording, but most states that DO recognize common law also grant the benifits of "legal marraige" to both partners in this type of arrangement. Could that be a "solution" to this problem?


Yes, there are still states that recognize common law marriages, but the ones I am familiar with do not grant all benefits of a legal marriage to such couples. For example, a common law couple can not jointly file their tax returns, health insurance to a common law spouse is usually not allowed (Alaska is an exception that applies directly to homosexual couples), a common law marriage does not serve as grounds to deny welfare benefits to the female (most welfare is in the form of aid to dependant children).

Interestingly, not all marriages between a man and woman are recognized in all States. While there is a federal law on the books, originating in the 19th century, requiring the federal government to recognize Indian marriages as legally binding the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not recognize a traditional Creek Indian marriage, but requires a Creek couple to also be married in "proper", legal white man fashion in order to qualify for benefits typical of Eurocentric marriages such as health insurance coverage, rights of inheritance, &c.

So in a nut shell, invoking the common law will do little or nothing to provide a solution to the issue at hand.

I belief that a provision allowing the formation of civil union contracts would do so, while preserving the alleged "sanctity" of traditional marriage. Not only would it solve the so called "gay marriage" issue, but also the situation my very traditional Creek friends encountered in Kentucky.


--------------------
user posted image "You can't run with the big dogs if you still pee like a puppy".

Stardancer Historical Freight Dogs, Two Rivers, Alaska.

"Aut pax, aut bellum" (Clan Gunn)
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 11-Jun-2006, 11:35 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Sonee @ 11-Jun-2006, 09:31 AM)
As to revisionist history,  in what manner are you asking the question? Are you suggesting that I am rewriting history to further my own ends or that I am rewriting it with more accurate information?

Are those my only choices? Gee, I didn't think I was asking either of them. rolleyes.gif

The only reason I ask (and how you found yourself as the focal point of my question, I'll never know) is that I have always been fascinated when new history surfaces to make old history obsolete. I understand that this is a valid part of historical research, but at the same time I don't believe it always is accurate, or even based on facts. I would be interested in reading more about what you posted if there's something on the internet you could point me to.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Sonee 
Posted: 11-Jun-2006, 11:07 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 277
Joined: 05-Apr-2005
ZodiacAsh

Realm: Nebraska

female





In light of the fact that your question was specifically directed to me, by name, I took it that I, or at least my post, was the focus of the question. If I was wrong than I apologize, but since the question was posed to me I answered.

I was not familiar with the term 'revisionist history' so I looked it up. Those are the two definitions I found. One was a legitimate 'changing' of historical fact based on new evidence being found and the other suggested a twisting of facts to hide or ignore negative things (think holocost denial). Since I had no way to judge the feeling behind the question I asked for clarification. I didn't want to take offense if none was intended If that upset you then again, I apologize.

The information I posted was taken from documents, letters, etc. written by the Puritans/Pilgrims themselves as well as information from letters written by Thomas Jefferson after the Declaration had been signed and a copy of the original Dec. that he wrote before it was altered to become what we know today. I also read documents from others in Jeffersons time regarding the wording of the Dec. as it applied to the Slavery and Women's Right's issues. I read them in books so I don't know if there are copies online or not. If you give me a bit of time I would be happy to look into it for you.

Swanny--Thank you for the clarification. I haven't had the time to look into this idea myself yet and was hoping that someone with more knowledge than myself could at least give me the basics!! To be quite honest I don't understand why civil union contracts CAN'T work. Like you, I see it as a solution that SHOULD satisfy all sides. The religious groups don't have to let their godly ceremony be "sullied" with the UNgodly homosexual, and the homosexuals would get all the "marraige" benifits they have been denied to date. Where is the drawback?
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
Š2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics Š2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt