lindyhopper

Dooj, I'm only seeing the second image. Giambologna was an amazing sculptor and that is a great shot of his work. Absolutely insane detail and realism in the figures. Thanks for posting them... but what is the first one.

I think this is it for me. I am tired of the things I say being misrepresented. I have not stigmatized the "Mom and Pop" marriage. I have not hinted at there usually being abuse in two parent homes. I have not made a general statement that says one single parent is better than two. To close out my posts on the other thread... I never said I thought all those that disagreed with me were homophobes and I am not a bigot because I refuse to accept bigoted ideas. I think most people who have read my posts realize this. What I have said on this thread and the gay marriage thread is that what it takes to raise good, healthy, well adjusted children is a nurturing environment with parent(s) that have the time to give the love, attention, support, and encouragement required. I have quoted an article from The American Association of Pediatrics that references studies that basically say that. I have said that a support network beyond the immediate family is very helpful. I have said teen pregnancy is not a good situation and that it is clear that effective sex education is the the way to reduce that likelihood. Rhino, on this subject we probably agree on more than either of us would like to admit, but we definitely disagree on how to talk about it and some of the little details. We definitely disagree on the other thread and I will leave it at that.

That is humorous. Well not really. Sounds like the same old spin. LCM was "weeded out" by certain lawsuits going public. After many people started leaving because of this he was demoted and then finally given the boot. You look at the big picture it all looked so much like damage control. Who were the other leaders that were "weeded out." There have been quite a few leaders from the Lichts to the Lallys to the Panerellos to the Mosquitas who may be considered bad leaders by some, but they were not bad my TWI's standards because they were not kicked out. They left on their own. No weeding... just leaving. So now even TWI says they were "bad leaders?" Sounds like their label of every other person who ever left TWI or for that matter anyone who was kicked out for petty reasons. Good luck with the "greatest ministry out there." I hope the next leader who goes a little nutty and power hungry is noticed a little earlier than all those spiritual leaders did the first time around... for your sake and for the rest of those still in TWI.

Exactly bramble. Actually, studies show what I have been saying that loving, caring, nurturing parents are the gold standard. Mom and Pop won't help the health and well being of a child or a spouse when the other spouse is abusive, for example. Do we need to look at abuse rates? We CAN have both. My family is a great example of two loving caring parents that take the time and give the love and make the sacrifices needed to raise good kids. It is not easy, and there are plenty of challenges. While we are a "mom and pop" family we are by no means traditional. There is still a stigma attached to being a stay at home dad in many places coming from men and women. It is assumed at times that the dad stays home because they can't get a job or because they are not a strong enough "traditional male figure" etc etc. The going backwards is the stigmatizing of single parents that is going on here. It is sad that we have to do this so often but : stigmatize- to describe or regard as worthy of disgrace or great disapproval. I am not doing that of "mom and pop". That is being done of single unwed mothers. It is not a problem if the kid(s) are getting the love and support they need. The real problem if we are talking about divorce is what led to the divorce be it abuse or getting into marriage for the wrong reasons etc. If we are talking about teen moms then again it is not the single parent factor as much as it is the teen pregnancy factor and the economic factors that follow. Address the real issues instead of saying a single educated adult shouldn't have a kid on their own. You said in another place that people get married to have kids or least with that assumption. I say people get married because they are in love and want to spend the rest of their life together and want make to a commitment establishing and confirming that. Getting married for kids or because of kids is the exact type of thing that lends itself to divorce. .Again, see the definition above. It would be great to have two strong parents for every household, but that is not going to happen and that is not enforceable. You want a education on marriage for teens? How about education on parenting? I don't think most right wing people would find that appealing but that would be more effective than just the importance of marriage. Again, two parents does not ensure a healthy household or proper parenting. These are broad strokes you are making. We don't necessarily have a doubly strong household with the modern woman. We have all new problems, of which I listed some earlier. As a stay at home parent I have seen that first hand among other SAHMs and SAHDs. For example, with as many play groups and classes and this, that, and the other that SAHPs sometimes do, they might as well be in daycare. I've been in Barnes and Noble plenty of times when SAHPs come in and leave their kids for hours in the kids section while they go and have their mommy social gathering at the cafe. Meanwhile, their kids are running amuck and and acting up, leaving me there to discipline their kids. Quite possibly discipline like they've never had it. I'm not saying that is the norm, but this happens with quite a few parents in numerous parts of the country that I have lived and visited. Just one small example. Again, are they going to talk about parenting if they are talking about marriage in light of kids? Relationship skills would be good. Situational coping skills would be better. Critical thinking skills would be great (something that was more left to college when I was in school). From your same source it says that sex before the age of 20 is a global norm. It also says that the hight of teen pregnancy rates was in the 1950s. It also says that while most kids have sex before 20 many girls feel pressured before they were ready. It also said that the globally, effective sex education has been the key to reducing teen pregnancy.

I picked up something very similar in college at a second hand store, but the accordion portion of it (what ever that is called) needed repair. Little did I know I could have repaired it and retired. Oh well.

Of course, Hap if you say that you have to follow it with the caveat that "not all change is good either" just so everyone understands. The tradition of our founding fathers concerning marriage left married women more as property than as people. It took quite a while to get that turned around.

"Stigmatize" the traditional family? Mom and Pop gettting the bum rap? If you are referring to the paragraph you quoted, the point of that sarcastic paragraph was not how bad traditional marriage is, but that the good ol' days are never as good as we romantically remember them to be. I have no problem with traditional marriage as long as it is a good situation for all involved and just having a father and a mother does not guarantee that. Being traditional does not make it so either. I don't see anywhere where I have said anything different. As the article I posted on the other thread said and as every study on the subject says, it is not the sex of marriage couples that makes for a happy home and well raised children. Loving, conscientious and nurturing adults are who raise well adjusted children. Whether they are step-parents (I have those), adopted parents, single parents (I had that for a short while), hetero parents, gay parents, working moms, stay at home dads (that was me), or whatever those are the general qualities you need to raise well adjusted kids. Not every family is going to be the same and each family needs to decide what if best for them. For us that was my wife worked and I stayed home for about three years. That decision was largely economic, but our opinion was what is best for our kids is one of us staying home. Pretty traditional concept eh? Our decision... not so much so. Our kids are great so far BTW. The traditional family is not getting the bums rush on these threads, gay marriage is. Single parents have been saluted and that is good. It is a tough job. But gay marriage is the only family type which is getting expressions of discrimination here. You say I am "very much for gay marriage." I would say I am very much against discriminating against gay couples. But that is the other thread. You brought up a good point with the family income stats. That is what I am talking about. Giving women equal rights both socially and in marriage was the right thing to do. Did that cure all our ills? No. Did that create new ones? Yes. Is going backwards the way to go? No. Finding new solutions is the answer. I certainly don't have them all, but single parents in a not a problem. It is a reality and single parents can raise kids that do well in school, don't do drugs, don't become teen parents, don't go killing people just like a traditional family can. Will it be harder to raise kids as a single parent? Most likely, especially with no extended family help. It is harder for traditional families without an extended family network than it is for those that do. So doing the right thing ended up bringing us to a point in which we have more single parents, is the single parent the problem or are the economics the problem? So it is harder for single parents. Is there anything we can do as a society to regulate how people have kids? I don't think anybody is for that, except for those against gay couples adopting. Is there anything we can do as a society to make it better for parents, single or couples, and their children? Absolutely, there is quite a bit we could do if we wanted to. ------------- For the record, I think two parents is ideal, but single parents is a reality and people adjust and there is no such thing as the perfect family. The amazing thing about children is how well they adjust. I think divorce can be a nasty process for all involved, but in the end sometimes it is the best thing for everyone involved. It isn't black and white, except for the general fact that kids need love, attention, discipline, and encouragement. I think teen parents are not ideal and many times is a problem, but not just because they are single but because they usually not ready to be parents. Plus, the economic factors are much more likely to have an effect on teen parents than they would be on a single college grad parent. As for the "explosion" of teen pregos Rhino referred to, that is a myth. Teen pregnancy has been steadily going down both nationally and by state since 1990. Right now we are at a lower rate than we were in the 70s and earlier. Check the data. I'm not sure if that downward turn was around the time sex ed became prevalent but I would bet that had something to do with it. Locally, the trends change. For example, in the last place I lived Boulder, CO teen sex rates and pregnancies continued to go down, while out in Longmont (same county) where they taught abstinence only intercourse rates were the same and pregnancies went up.

just not any contemporary dictionaries.

Exactly, our country is about equality and liberty among other things (at least it is supposed to be). If we held back spending on everything that some individual or group found offensive there would be no spending at all. Unfortunately, spending our tax dollars in ways we disagree with is not a breach on any of our human rights. from Rhino from Abi I don' think young kids having children is a good thing either. Anyone who feels the same way should have no problem with sex education. It has been shown that sex ed reduces the likelihood of intercourse, pregnancy, and STDs. The rates of kids under 15 having sex drops dramatically with sex ed. Abstinence only classes on the other hand do not reduce the rates for intercourse, while pregnancies are more likely when abstinence only is taught. This shows that not only is abstinence only teaching not reducing intercourse or pregnancy, but that sex ed does not increase sexual activity either. While I think it would be great if all parents would teach their kids about sex and contraception and abstinence, they don't and they won't. That being the case it is a public health issue, and sex ed seems to be working to some degree (of course there are always improvements to be made). Not only do you not what your kids making stupid mistakes that potentially turn into stupid practices (which could potentially permanently effect their future and education), but you don't want them to pay a hefty, potentially life-long, penalty for making a mistake or several mistakes sexually, by getting a bad STD. You can try to educate your kids and hope they make the right choices, but kids do make mistakes and they do have raging hormones and you can't control what their potential partner's parents teach them. That is why it is and should be taught in schools. The importance of family is not a public health issue. Maybe put that in a civics class or something. A lot of this stuff came out of things like the sexual revolution, the women's movement, women's reproductive rights, and the homosexual revolution. You know all those evil leftist things. If we could only get back to the good old days of women being stuck in abusive relationships, having fewer rights, no voice, fewer options, and could be raped by their own husbands with no recourse. Gay people were way way in the closet, many times starting families the "old fashioned way" while slowly going crazy in an unhappy home. Bored and depressed housewives were inventing things like methamphetamine. Teen moms were stigmatized. While teens had less sex in general out of the fear of shunning, the wrath of their parents, and the fact that they literally would have no options as a teen mom. Ah yes, the good ol' days. Perhaps it is not a leftist agenda but maybe society is just progressive. I think society always wants to move forward and evolve and it has. As we learn new things about the world around us, other people, and ourselves, we all change and collectively evolve and society pushes and changes bit by bit, with an occasional burst, while dragging the naysayers kicking and screaming. The less we learn the more we stay the same. It is the nature of a free society. As I said, there are much greater threats to children and society than the unwed mother.

Boy, an explosion since I last was here. rhino- That is funny. If I am intolerant of bigoted views and prejudice that makes me a bigot? You an a number of posters here are know for this twisted logic, turning this back around on anyone who doesn't agree with you.from wikipedia: "A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology. The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable." There you go. I am not the one intolerant of lifestyles, or identities that do not harm anyone, and while I am intolerant of certain opinions I am not prejudice or discriminating against those people. On the other hand, many posting here are. As to the "homophobe" statements earlier by WW, a phobia is a fear and while it does not fit everyone that disagrees with homosexuality is it does fit for some as does certain people being hateful of homosexuals. While it may not be a clinical term (maybe it is, I don't know) a phobia is simply a fear and at times an irrational fear. I don't see a reasonable explanation for those people that believe that homosexual marriage is somehow going to destroy or effect heterosexual marriage in any way. We are talking about taking something that is already going on in a couple states and other countries as a union and something that is already going on without being legally legit and including it into a definition. That seems like an irrational fear to me. As to the data concerning children raised by gay parents, there is plenty and by no means is it just "rich Hollywood types." From the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics I've heard thirty five years of studies from other sources. Many groups have done studies on this like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association as well as others. Anyone who is actually interested might look it up.

No I said I "acted" like one. I was in a cult. I was definitely leaning that way at times, but I was much more accepting than many I knew. Of course, back when I acted that way I always assured people that I most assuredly was not a homophobe or homosexual hater. Not projecting on you or anyone else, just the reality of how I felt at the time. I guess I will continue to not know who the majority is as long as people continue to avoid the question. Majority or not if their belief is based on religious bigotry then they are the ones that are wrong and unless you can confirm that this is truly about religious folk with a hyper sensitivity to semantics (one word in particular) or explain how exactly this is going to make all marriages crumble then, without being hateful, without projecting, without being angry or upset, this looks like it is based on prejudice. Please prove me wrong. This is the genius I am talking about. Adding gays to the definition of marriage removes children as a component? Are you serious? And this "furthers the breakdown?" We are talking about real life problems with kids and parents and life and death and poverty and you think a definition is going to further those problems? All this talk about definitions and not adding anything to it because of the imposition but here you have added something to it. Kids aren't in the definition and clearly marriage is not required to have children, nor is it required to have healthy well adjusted children.

:) Thanks Ex. Wow 13. Very good. I totally get it. People are "an enigma, wrapped in a conundrum, cloaked in a riddle, enmeshed in a Gordian knot and sealed in a monkey ball" He seems like a funny and daring and smart young man.

Okie dokie The first line is VERY debatable, if not just plain wrong... I won't get into that. He seems to think that congress and every other civilized nation have not proposed gay marriage because "traditional families" are the building block of society. Is a heterosexual marriage a "family"? No. Does every heterosexual couple get married to have kids, want kids, or are they all even capable of having kids? No. What of them? This little bit also seems to imply once again that the official legalization of gay marriage is going to somehow cause the "traditional family" to "crumble." Perhaps you, Rhino, or anyone else, could explain the mechanics of this. How does this happen. Homosexuals get married and suddenly heterosexual marriages get more screwed up. How many times does it have to be pointed out that we've done a pretty damn good job of that all on our own. Please, though, explain the mechanics behind this idea. And gays or gay marriage has contributed to this in what way? Completely unrelated to the topic. These are statistics about the failure of heterosexual marriages. Statistics that have been in a downward spiral long before gay marriage was on the table. I would also say this is less about marriage and more about economics. It takes more than just two parents being in a relationship to raise kids in a way that (hopefully) protects them from these things. Being Christian and/or white or straight has little to nothing to do with it. What a funny thing to say. With only 15 percent of the country making six figures I can't imagine that there are that many social scientists in that income bracket. lol Perhaps trying to make these social scientists seem elitist. I don't know. I would think that again economic standing would also have a huge effect on the prison to broken home link. "Ah, hahaha, all laughing about these bozos aside here is the real reason we should be upset. It is not that us heteros have screwed up the sacred institution of marriage, it is that the courts did their job. God forbid. N-no, really, God forbid."Rhino, explain to me where this genius makes the case that "these Christian views make for sound culture." I read the rest of the article and still didn't see it. from you It is different from the sodomy law, but that wasn't my point. The reasons for the sodomy laws and the wording in the legal definition of marriage came from the same world view, one in which homosexuality was not at all acceptable, much less so than today. So why would one expect to see a definition favorable towards homosexuals? Sodomy laws only started to be repealed in states since the late 60s (by illinois) and as late as 2003 three for some states. Again why were those laws in place? Threats to social order? You didn't answer that question. It relates to this subject. The personal views of those against the modification of this definition are also key to this discussion. You didn't answer that question either. Don't give me this projecting BS, just answer the question.

That is some impressive writing there Phil. Lots of good stuff in there. Great lines... perspective... expressive thoughts and depth of feeling. Seems you can paint a picture in more ways than one. You do it well in this format for sure.

Holy numb-chucks! I wouldn't want to get into a smoothie bar brawl with that gang. Congrats.

That was a good article, Bramble. I think the key to raising kids is having enough time to give them enough love and attention and a nurturing, supportive, safe environment so they can grow and learn and pursue their interests and enjoy life. I don't think that requires a husband and wife, but it is hard enough for a husband and wife to raise kids on their own. I don't know that "it takes a village" but having broader support outside of mom and dad is a huge help. I think there are greater cultural problems facing families and children today than the unwed mother. We live in a society that seems to be less and less family centered. Even married women (or parents in general) have a hard time taking much time off after having a child. That early connection is key in raising a child. Family time gets replaced with classes and camps for toddlers to teenagers. Careers have us chasing our jobs around the country or world leaving family networks behind, while making it harder to create new ones in new places. Good cheap child care can be hard to find in many areas. Critical school curricula has been being cut for decades. Then there is a lot of the stuff Bramble's article talked about. The list goes on. Unmarried moms is not the problem. Of course, given the above, I would not advise someone to have a kid on their own. You make due though. Most good people do. Still, no one is totally prepared for the stresses and responsibilities of being a parent. No matter how much you prepare, how many classes you sit through, how much you babysat as a teenager, nothing can totally prepare you. It is on the job training. My hat is off to single parents.

The "perhaps" came after the part that made my point, "from Latin maritare 'to marry', literally 'give a husband to', from maritus 'married man, husband'." The point is language evolves as things evolve. I think the vote and constitutionality etc was covered early on in this thread... and the process continues. The point again was language evolves and it was apart of the first point in my last post. That was that the word already evolved at some point in the past. Sort of. Gender isn't important in the metaphor. The point is the union. I don't expect the book in which "sodomy" comes from to reference gay marriage, but the metaphor is about the union, not about JC being male and all of us making up the church being female. The language reflects the time, the metaphor and analogy and point of the metaphor transcends sexuality and typical marriage. Growing up I didn't know a thing about homosexuality and in my later childhood years while I was in a cult and I acted as a homophobe or just a hater of homos. Now when I see a person with a ring on their finger I assume they are married. If I have never met them before I don't assume anything about their sexuality, although, I figure it is more likely that they are hetero since you can only get married in two (?) states in the US. Still some gay people have marriages or unions outside of the legal world and they too wear rings as a sign of their commitment. So I don't assume. You know what ASSuming does. LOL "There is nothing fundamentalist about this.. it's the way it's always been." lol that is funny. You have no problem with homosexuality? You think their lifestyle is perfectly fine? You are perfectly comfortable with them? Your only problem with this is that Californians voted against something you also share a semantic issue with and you're upset the judges performed their constitutional duties and came to a different conclusion than you did? This is strictly a semantic issue for you? My wit is lost on you once again. Sorry. I don't want to damn the voters of CA, but it seems some on this thread want to damn the state or the judges. Have you missed comments on this thread like this: "go ahead and have a party over this legal decision if you want... but don't expect God to bless california because of it!" So the legal language has been man and woman forever. So what. Things have changed. Some of you don't like it, maybe the majority of people don't like it. That also does not matter if the majority of the people's vote is unconstitutional. Why was the language the way it was? Were you expecting the same states that outlawed sodomy and/or homosexual sexual behavior, to make the definitions of marriage to be vague enough to allow them to marry, as long as they don't have sex? And why were those "sodomy" laws in the books in the first place? A risk to civil society? Back then it was considered ok to infringe on private acts? Religious bigotry? Think hard. All of those laws have been struck down. And now I'm supposed to assume everyone's problem with this is semantics?

"NOT GOD BLESS CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA! GOD DAMN CALIFORNIA!" I keep hearing that in my head every time I come to this thread.

I know this was not legal and perhaps even an abomination, but in my many years in the restaurant industry we used to marry ketchup bottles. I know, asexual marriage... the worst kind. I might go to hell for it but the reality is many things have been married other than a man to a woman. This sort of marriage has been in our dictionaries for a long time, perhaps since before my time, but I doubt there was a huge social argument that took place when the dictionaries changed. I guess no one disagreed with the lifestyles led by condiments. FOR SHAME! Speaking of tradition and historical definitions, has anyone looked up the etymology of the word? Here ya go, from wiktionary.com: It seems at one point marriage had more of a single sex definition. Speaking of Ketchup... Did you know that the word comes from the Chinese? They had a sause of pickled fish and spices (but no tomatoes) and they called it ke-tsiap. Within a decade of it's invention British explorers had tasted it in Malaysia. Within forty years it was a regular on the tables of the Brits, renamed as ketchup. One hundred years after it's invention in the late 1700s, New England colonists threw some tomatoes into the mix, a fruit long thought to have been poisonous, and our version of ketchup was born! "Whaaaaat?", you say, "they changed the sauce, but kept the same name?" Yep. And now unbeknownst to restauranteurs around the world people are eating married ketchup on their hamburgers, hotdogs, fries, and ,in some of the finer establishments, on their steaks. It IS an abomination! Somewhere in between the ketchup and heterosexuals the homosexual marriage fits without breaking any syntactic rules. Speaking of religious bigotry... well not really. In the bible, if my memory serves me correctly, the "bride of Christ" was the Church. As I understood it the relationship between the Church and Jesus was like a betrothal, hinting at a future "marriage" when he returns. Nothing about sexuality there, yet the metaphor communicates rather clearly... a union. I think when you look back at some of the words used in this thread, some of the comparisons used, it is pretty clear what this is about. The definition argument is just the best thing one can come up with to make it not sound like they just don't like homosexuals or their "lifestyle" or that they think it is a sin. These views don't hold up to well in a social debate in a free country so the fundamentalist definition argument is what we get. I think any one not of that opinion can see that very clearly.

Thank you HAP. Saved me cutting and pasting. The times they are a changin'. I think this is the least of our problems when it comes to the coercive power of the state. Actually, no one is forcing anyone to get a marriage license. You just miss out on the "benefits." If only the state would honer and trust what we say... Cause people are so honest. Legal shmeagle. Let us do what we feel like and give us the benefits we ask for. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, am I reading you correctly, Rhino. You make it sound as though this poor guy thinking he was having a one night stand is now FORCED by the state to help pay to raise his child. Are you saying this is a bad thing? Smack yourself twice and dump a bucket of cold water over your head if you are.

Now THAT my friend is unnatural!

Try calling someone a "mulatto" today. It is a derogatory term now. Probably because it was a derogatory term then, just no one cared. Funny how no one seemed to care about making up a new word for your or my personal heritage. Is there a special word for a half German half- Irish person. NO. Why? Because no one CARES. "White" or "caucasian" communicates enough. "Marriage" communicates enough. Really? They have a different commitment as a couple than a married man and woman? How so? I thought it was more about having sex in a different way. How is their commitment different? You know what else would make it sound different? Call it GAY marriage. No confusion there. You won't mistake Joe for Judy or vise versa. You might not know "exactly" how they have sex, but then you can always just ask, if you feel so inclined. A car is a car and a truck is a truck, but they are both vehicles. You can have a Jewish wedding or a Catholic wedding, you can have a civil ceremony, but afterward, they are all married. Everyone understands what that means, it didn't suddenly define their sex as individuals or their sexuality, it just describes the commitment and the legal contract and benefits you both have. Whether you choose to acknowledge it as such, it is what it is. Exactly, why it doesn't communicate to you and others is beyond me. But I think we have all been able to follow this conversation pretty clearly from the start. If you need any clarification, please just ask.

We did this for blacks too. Mulatto for for a half white- half black person. There were other names that escape me now, for half black- half mexican, half black- half indian, etc. They didn't pass judgement, but gave a more accurate description of a person's race, as if it was any of our business or should have made any difference. What they did do was made it more clear on how to discriminate against each group. Civil union as marriage doesn't do much in terms of communication, other than tells everyone, discriminator and non-discriminator, that this person is homosexual. Maybe we could have different rings too. Maybe on a different finger, so we could just know by looking at them. What about husband and wife? We need new words for that too. We MUST know who is the "giver" in the gay male relationship and who is the "taker"... not to pass judgement, just so we really know who is the "husband" and who is the "wife." It is just for clarification. Communication? Is there really going to be any confusion over Bob coming over to you and introducing his new husband Jim? "Wait a second when you said you were getting 'married' to Jim, I thought that was your pet name for your future wife 'Jimbolina.' You said 'married." Not that there's anything wrong with that." A perversion of the language? We're talking about adding an additional "man" and/or "woman" to the definition. That's perverting the language? Oh, oh wait, you probably meant they are perverts and thus they are perverting the language, perhaps even your own marriage by etymological association. Honestly, this is ridiculous.

So much going on... so much to reply to... I'll try to keep it simple. Bride- You asked about the "other Acts." Here are some brief summaries of some of them. Some are more fanciful than others, but as the link explains "acts" was a genre of writing of the time. Some are considered to be more history than others but as I said, history, fiction, and religious writings seem to overlap quite a bit, especially in theocratic societies. Which brings us to our history. You brought up Washington and his cherry tree. As Oak pointed out, a great example. He didn't chop it down. More explicitly though, this was not just a story illustrating his honesty, but just one of many stories in the deification of Washinton. This started during his life time and continued in varied degrees in communities and circles throughout our young country. This is a very interesting topic to me and there is plenty to read on it, but one important note. We were and are a democratic society, not theocratic, yet within our first presidents lifetime folklore began to circulate about him and it only continued after his death. A quick example: ever seen this painting, "The Apotheosis of Washinton"? It is on the dome of the rotunda of our capital building. While it is allegorical it is not completely divorced from a very real mythology in our country's history. This was only roughly 60 some years after Washington's last term in office and his death a couple of years later. 60(ish) years. Now imagine a great person, a king, a charismatic and/or revolutionary religious person in a theocratic society, in a time and area of the world drenched in this sort of idolization. The "Acts" I linked are an example of this. Stories of kings and queens around the ancient world are examples of this. How long after Jesus' death were the gospels written? How about the different "acts"? How about the different kings of the OT? I had a great history professor who once equated history with a court case. A historian gathers evidence to support their case and they go at it. If there is enough evidence you may get two diametrically opposed positions. If the Kings and rulers stamped out most or all of any evidence contrary to their favored opinion then you get one view. One skewed view. The reality of the situation is probably somewhere in between the king's/ ruler's view and the other squelched guy's view, but we never get a good idea of that in those situations. You only get the one viewpoint.

So this is more about the rights to a definition? So they can go ahead and have a "union", and live together, and get all the benefits of what you call a marriage, etc etc, as long as they don't call it a "marriage"? If there is one thing history can teach us about words is that they change and their definitions change. If not now, then the next generation. Of course by then we might all be saying, "we're goin' to the Chizzy to get mizzied."