Joe Biden endorses gay marriage

[TJ in Wisco]

Dictionaries can be changed. That much is only a function of language.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dictionaries can be changed. That much is only a function of language.

then be honest - you want to redefine marriage.

[TJ in Wisco]

Dictionaries can be changed. That much is only a function of language.

then be honest - you want to redefine marriage.

I never said I wanted to, just that it could be done by the standard he's presenting. That's a huge difference.

[opebo]

...as it was in the days of Lot, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

You mean they had a nice Vice President then too?

[Gravis Marketing]

Dictionaries can be changed. That much is only a function of language.

then be honest - you want to redefine marriage.

There's a long tradition of redefining marriage, starting from the creation of civil marriage, the change in women's status from property to equal partner, changing views on divorce, the allowance of interfaith marriages, development of marriage for love, development of marriage for seniors, and the legalization of interracial marriage. Within the current definition of marriage, allowing same-sex unions to be counted is not as dramatic as other changes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dictionaries can be changed. That much is only a function of language.

then be honest - you want to redefine marriage.

There's a long tradition of redefining marriage, starting from the creation of civil marriage, the change in women's status from property to equal partner, changing views on divorce, the allowance of interfaith marriages, development of marriage for love, development of marriage for seniors, and the legalization of interracial marriage. Within the current definition of marriage, allowing same-sex unions to be counted is not as dramatic as other changes.

dude, those are NOT changes to the definition of marriage, for there are thousands of years of history.

Heck, you can find examples of everything bolded, even in the bible.

Historically, you had recognition of marriages without a certificate of marriage (the couple simply had to present themselves to the public as husband and wife), marriages between seniors, marriages between the races.

Though, I have no idea what you mean by “development of marriage for love”…as if marrying for love’s sake is something new…as if it was always forced and pre-arranged?

[asexual trans victimologist]

It was certainly considered a type of business contract in most civilizations. Maybe among the peasantry there was greater leeway but that's certainly not normative in the historical record.

Marriage really isn't one of those things that you can present as normative from and for eternity (at least, not from a historical perspective; from a religious perspective you certainly can if you're not hung up on the historical perspective) without going through some pretty convoluted retroactive redefinition anyway.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

It was certainly considered a type of business contract in most civilizations. Maybe among the peasantry there was greater leeway but that's certainly not normative in the historical record.

Marriage really isn't one of those things that you can present as normative from and for eternity (at least, not from a historical perspective; from a religious perspective you certainly can if you're not hung up on the historical perspective) without going through some pretty convoluted retroactive redefinition anyway.

are you saying the bible doesn't view marriage as a contract of love?

[oakvale]

Could someone explain to me what the legal difference between civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples is in the United States?

[Grumps]

Could someone explain to me what the legal difference between civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples is in the United States?

Aside from taxes and health insurance and all the privileges married couples enjoy?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Could someone explain to me what the legal difference between civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples is in the United States?

Aside from taxes and health insurance and all the privileges married couples enjoy?

actually, for the vast majority of cases, there is a tax penalty for being married.

and, what, exactly are these "privileges"?

[greenforest32]

Could someone explain to me what the legal difference between civil unions and marriage for same-sex couples is in the United States?

Main legal difference is recognition I believe.

There has been no compact for states to recognize other states' civil unions like there has been for marriage (in addition to making the federal government not recognize any same-sex marriage, the federal DOMA law also said states can choose to avoid to recognize other states' marriages if it is between a same-sex couple) and there are many federal legal rights and benefits (such as spousal/survivor Social Security benefits) that civil unions will not confer unless the statutes are rewritten to include civil unions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

[asexual trans victimologist]

It was certainly considered a type of business contract in most civilizations. Maybe among the peasantry there was greater leeway but that's certainly not normative in the historical record.

Marriage really isn't one of those things that you can present as normative from and for eternity (at least, not from a historical perspective; from a religious perspective you certainly can if you're not hung up on the historical perspective) without going through some pretty convoluted retroactive redefinition anyway.

are you saying the bible doesn't view marriage as a contract of love?

Well, I mean, that's normative within the Bible, certainly, but it's hard to argue that it's the case with every specific marriage presented or discussed. I'm not really discussing the Bible here anyway, more the general way things were structured in ancient societies (and many modern societies, for that matter).

[shua]

Marriage for love as an ideal has always existed, though other concerns have often taken precedence.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Marriage for love as an ideal has always existed, though other concerns have often taken precedence.

Exactly. What constitutes that ideal is culturally specific, as is how frequently it's upheld, but that core has always been there. The point is that practically nothing else, certainly nothing of the practice, has been universal.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

...as it was in the days of Noah, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Fixed. Don't misquote The Bible for your own benefit.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...as it was in the days of Lot Noah, even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Fixed. Don't misquote The Bible for your own benefit.

are you serious?  it wasn't a quote, it was a paraphrase, here is the actual quote:

Luke 17:26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.  28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed".

So, either way you slice it, my statement may not have been verbatim, but it was still accurate.

[So the Heroes Fall]

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/06/478786/biden-marriage

So bets on when Obama does? I'll say February 2013.

February 2015. Dude has a midterm election to get through.

Well we both were quite off.