 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Oct 14 - 06:49 AM Musket, which of my views are not accepted by ordinary, decent people, or are you just smearing again? My views on this are the same as yours. Also, I have not linked to any internet pages in this, so why the jibe about googling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Oct 14 - 04:46 AM Musket, which of my views are not accepted by ordinary, decent people, or are you just smearing again? Ed, the last thousand years have rather more impact on people than what the ancients got up to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 18 Oct 14 - 04:09 AM Bill, I do not subscribe to the "gradualist" view in either of these issues. As far as I can see, there is absolutely no reasonable way that any decent person can support the murder and mass ill treatment of any race, based on colour. I protested vigorously over this issue in the sixties. Black and white can behave in a perfectly normal way in regards to natural functions like procreation, bringing up a family etc, the template is still in place. I believe that the discrimination was instigated to keep a pool of cheap labour available to the ruling classes of the time...the blacks were made an underclass, to keep them in their social position. The issue of homosexual "marriage" is quite different, there are reasonable arguments to be put in opposition. The procreation and family aspect is missing, except in a tiny minority of cases, but they will never provide any children with a natural mother and father. The health situation within male homosexuality is sadly appalling. The "rights" issue is also different in that homosexuals have all the civil rights of heterosexuals through civil union, they have in fact three status, single, civil union, and "marriage". At present heterosexuals have only two.....married or single and are vet unlikely to be granted another for obvious reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 18 Oct 14 - 02:18 AM I reckon it goes out and speaks to itself, on the basis normal people avoid it as it walks through the Scottish village it thinks is the world. Not a single person in The UK has an opinion on same sex "marriage". Everybody has an opinion on marriage though. Rapists have an opinion on sex if you think on.. Keith seems to be taking his time googling his next attempt to get his views accepted by normal decent people. Need help Keith? Akenaton might be free to help out, and pete can write it down.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:21 PM The point, Ake, is that many people back near the time of the Civil War, and in Southern schools and in registrars office, and at public lunch counters in the 20 Century, were of the opinion that change in the rights granted to blacks should be allowed 'gradually', if at all. A metaphor is not a logical error. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Don Firth Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:47 PM Not my conjecture, Ake. Historical fact. Akhenaton was married to Nefertiti, but he had several concubines--of both sexes. Just a fun-loving dude.... Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Don Firth Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:38 PM Matthew Shepard. Just who I've been thinking of, but KB in Iowa beat me to posting it. Picked up in a bar by two guys and offered a ride home, but instead, driven out on a country road near Laramie, Wyoming, where he was robbed, brutally beaten, tied to a split-rail fence and pistol-whipped, then left hanging on the fence, unconscious. Eighteen hours later, a by-passer on a bicycle found him--at first thinking he a scarecrow. The police took Matthew Shepard to a hospital. He had suffered multiple cuts, lacerations, and bruises on his face, multiple skull fractures, and severe damage to his brain-stem. He never regained consciousness and died a few days later. Why? Matthew Shepard, twenty-one years old, was gay. Don Firth P. S. Matthew Shepard's murderers are both serving life terms in prison. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Steve Shaw Date: 17 Oct 14 - 06:30 PM ED nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation. So what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:47 PM The source of much of the anti-gay prejudice comes from religion, even among those who claim that they are now not religious-even by some on Mudcat.. A couple of good Christian quote examples, from good old Christian family folks, below: "We say God did not intend anyone to be this way – to be gay or lesbian." John Paulk, Focus on the Family "AIDS comes from the devil, directly from Satan. He uses homosexuals as pawns and then he kills them." Anthony Falzarano, Founder, Parents and Friends Ministrie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: KB in Iowa Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:06 PM No one wants to lynch Homosexuals or deprive them of liberty. Tell that to Matthew Shepard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:39 PM "" nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation."" If so, you must have been travelling when the polls were taken, to make it unanimous. What was the weather like in India and China, when you gathered your "global statistics" on attitudes towards gays, certifying that your "anti-gay views" were now firmly in a global majority? BTW, did you ever notice that you often confuse your views as being the same as those of all others? (Kinda put your frequent assertions in the "sketchy" arena, where they aren't taken that seriously). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 17 Oct 14 - 04:25 PM ED nobody in my village "hates" homosexuals, but many are against the "marriage" legislation. Geek I agree that black people were treated shamefully, what is your point? No one wants to lynch Homosexuals or deprive them of liberty. The opposition to homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with race or colour, the arguments apply to BEHAVIOUR, something which none of us may conduct simply as we please. Equating the opposition to homosexual "marriage" with the fight for civil rights for Black people in America is just dishonest. In the UK homosexuals in civil union have all the civil rights afforded to heterosexuals, in fact, heterosexuals are discriminated against as THEY are not allowed to live under Civil Union. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:42 PM Ake You would not even recognize truth, under your obvious posted hang-ups. you once indicated you were witn thd majority on anti-gay hatred in your hamlet, then in Scotland-now you claim you are in a "Global Majority" ( Wow, what an impressive gathering of of global statistics, :) Get a grip Ake, you are now showing early signs of a mental disorder. You are starting to look pitiful regarding gay phobia. . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:41 PM "There were no reasonable arguments for the retention of slavery, no health problems associated with being black, no societal reasons for accepting free black people"... absolutely correct! YET... as little as 10% non-white "blood" was enough to relegate a person into "colored" category... separate schools, separate drinking fountains, eating places, had to use the back door if they let you in at all... lynching by the KKK for uppity behavior (and it didn't much to rock the boat), church burnings, prevented from voting in elections. and "mixed" race marriages were against the law... sounds a lot like being made into a second class citizen deprived of basic rights afforded everyone else to me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:30 PM "For NOT accepting free black people" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:28 PM ED....you seem to equate "hatred" and truth? Bill for someone who declares himself a "disciple of reason", you sure make some wild "leaps of faith" "Southern slave holders were not 'ready' for the Emancipation Proclamation "....What the hell has that to do with the homosexual "marriage" debate. There were no reasonable arguments for the retention of slavery, no health problems associated with being black, no societal reasons for accepting free black people........I think it is what you would call a "false equivalence"......you fraud. :0o |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 02:04 PM "The vast majority of people worldwide are opposed to homosexual "marriage" only a minority support it." Example of making things up. ""My opposition to Homosexual "marriage", has nothing to do with "hatred" or "bigotry", it is based on reason and common sense. "" No it is not! IMO, it is clearly based on anti-gay prejudice, based on your Mudcat posts. Worse, as demonstrated on Mudcat, you are obsessed with intentionally and considtantly spreading such hurtful views towards gays. Your so called , "common sense" is likely common among those with prejudiced hang-ups, but is based on illogical thinking and cherry picking and distorting information into anti-gay propaganda. Shame on you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:53 PM "Not divine revelation SG. Mores change slowly. New ideas require time to take hold. It is crazy to imagine everyone's position changing on the same day." So what!?! Just because bigotry was more common does not change what is was/is OR make it acceptable. Yes, change is not easy... but it is necessary or else you end up with unacceptable behavior continuing to persist. or has it escaped your notice that bigotry doesn't just disappear with passage of a law. It will only disappear when it is no longer tacityly condoned... stop being an enabler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:42 PM "Society not just the church was not ready for SS marriage." Ready? They'd better durned well GET ready! Southern slave holders were not 'ready' for the Emancipation Proclamation |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:40 PM My opposition to Homosexual "marriage", has nothing to do with "hatred" or "bigotry", it is based on reason and common sense. Male homosexual union or "marriage" has been shown to be completely different from heterosexual marriage from a health viewpoint and from a societal viewpoint. The huge rates of sexual infection which presently affect male homosexuals, indicates that the practice or the behaviour is unhealthy...UAI and high rates of promiscuity aligned with "open relationships should make society wary of accepting homosexuality into the mainstream. Heterosexual marriage also contains the element of procreation and the nurture of ones natural children as a template for a successful and viable society. Most experts agree that Mother, Father and extended family is the best way to bring up children. As I have said many times, I was strongly opposed to the criminalisation of homosexuality when it was the law and opposition to that law was sparse.....that is not bigotry. We must view how society is constructed carefully, close family relatives are refused the right to marry and incest is still a criminal offence, for health and societal reasons, even if there can be no issue from the relationship. The vast majority of people worldwide are opposed to homosexual "marriage" only a minority support it. We have destroyed much of what was a well functioning society in the last few decades...time to develop a bit of responsibility to the future generations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:35 PM Keith A of Hertford ""14 Oct 14 - 12:57 PM ...And that document bears out the point made by EdT, that marriage is a universally recognised arrangement.....Marriage has been exclusively for MF for millennia. (Let those who deny that produce examples please)..."" Keith A of Hertford ""17 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM I mean the same marriage as available to opposite sex couples at that time. And in the last thousand years, not the ancient world."" Examples of attempts to "stack the deck" in a discussion, by making an initial statement and later changing the parameters- in attempts to prove the beliefs are correct, after requested examples are provided (though likely not read). Why was the past 1000 years selected? Well, it is because, Christianity has had the major impact in defining what is the marriage institution is in in this period-which is exactly the problem gay marriage has faced. Good try Keith A, you are a good student of Ake's "cherry picking" techniques. Ake is Likely less smooth, and it is easier to see through his reasoning to get to the desired result. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:34 PM No. We have had secular marriage available for about a hundred years here.People like divorcees could marry who could not have a church wedding. You can not blame the church. Society not just the church was not ready for SS marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:27 PM Keith..Ed T has nailed it- If only a few gen-you-wine same sex 'marriages' have been recorded in hundreds of years prior to the last 50 or so, all that proves is that various jurisdictions... religious & secular.. have conspired to not grant or recognize them. It has no bearing on whether they SHOULD have. As I noted earlier, slaves, women, Jews, etc... were once denied various things- from basic freedoms to the very right to exist! Enumerating statistics, then arguing that a long history of suppression of rights somehow justifies that very suppression, is a curious way to defend a narrow viewpoint. You seemed to say up there ^ that 'only when some arbitrary percentage of society allows gays & lesbians to marry will it be allowed'.... right. "Force our hand, then we 'may' consent." Best I can do to explicate your strange reasoning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: akenaton Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:11 PM "well, I suppose we were given one specific example from ancient history," Sorry pete, Don's conjecture is complete bullshit. Ikhnaton, Akhenaton, Amenhotep 4th, was married to a daughter of his fathers brother,(Nefertiti) and within ten years she had produced to Ikhnaton six daughters. He, his wife and family are depicted on many ancient Egyptian reliefs. It is said that Ikhnaton was devoted to his wife and family ....it was unusual for Royal family groups to be produced at that time. The deaths of Ikhnaton and Nefertiti are shrouded in mystery but it is known that one of his daughters became ruler after his death. There was also another female ruler before the daughter who some scholars believe may have been Nefertiti herself, if she survived Ikhnaton The daughter in turn married and ruled with Smenkhkare, a shadowy figure, of whom very little is known. Ikhnaton, (Akhenaton), promoted the worship of nature and chiefly the sun, the ultimate life force, he forbade the worship of the numerous gods of the old kingdom and introduced the first monotheist religion. Some Scholars believe that the 18th dynasty king was Moses...of the Old testament. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 01:04 PM Not divine revelation SG. Mores change slowly. New ideas require time to take hold. It is crazy to imagine everyone's position changing on the same day. There was very little opposition to allowing SS couples civil partnerships. It was a new arrangement so no preconceptions of it. In fact it is exactly the same as marriage. Aa thousand years of preconceptions about what "marriage" constitutes takes time to overcome. Intolerance cuts two ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 12:55 PM I mean the same marriage as available to opposite sex couples at that time. And in the last thousand years, not the ancient world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,sciencegeek Date: 17 Oct 14 - 12:53 PM "Do not dismiss people as bigots because you recognise it before they do. " so it "unfair" to label someone as a bigot because they are not yet "enlightened"? Yet by very definition they are engaged in bigotry... so how long do they get a free ride? a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) Full Definition of BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. sorry... that smacks of double standard... actions/behavior must have appropriate consequences if you seek to alter negative behavior. or are you expecting divine revealation to "show them the light"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 11:45 AM .."" but any actual marriage in the last thousand years"" It seems like you are "stacking the deck" i this discussion by asking a question and then rejecting contributions because they do not meet some odd, unidentified personal standard for "actual marriage" you have set in your mind. This is a good example of skewed logic, IMO, not too cleverly put forward to reinforce a idea already held. Of course, marriage in the far off past, that merged into todays versions (eons before Christianity) did not mirror todays civil and religious mrriages, regardless of the sexes of the persons involved I that early day marriage. So, what is your real purpose in wasting other posters time and energy by doing so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 11:27 AM Interesting stuff, but any actual marriage in the last thousand years? My point in asking is to emphasise what remarkable progress has been made in a very short time. Inevitably, a time of adjustment is required before everyone gets on board. Do not dismiss people as bigots because you recognise it before they do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:49 AM ""Native Americans have often held intersex, androgynous people, feminine males and masculine females in high respect. The most common term to define such persons today is to refer to them as "two-spirit" people, but in the past feminine males were sometimes referred to as "berdache" by early French explorers in North America, who adapted a Persian word "bardaj", meaning an intimate male friend. Because these androgynous males were commonly married to a masculine man, or had sex with men, and the masculine females had feminine women as wives, the term berdache had a clear homosexual connotation. Both the Spanish settlers in Latin America and the English colonists in North America condemned them as "sodomites"."" Gay marriage in the history of American First Nations |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,Woohoo! You read the introduction. Congratul Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:38 AM Read some more. You will find translations of sacred (Christian!) rites for uniting same sex partners in the early church. Literally *in* the early church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Greg F. Date: 17 Oct 14 - 09:14 AM if we want to get anymore, a lot of reading is required Ain't life a bitch, pete? Yes, if you want to become educated, you're going to have to put sopme effort into it. Otherwise, you'll juat have to remain the ignorant fool. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:53 AM Did you mistakenly google "Amazon Women on the Moon", by chance? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:35 AM The introduction is available from that Amazon page. Much discussion of SS "unions" but nothing about "marriage" being available to SS couples for over a thousand years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,not taking the bait Date: 17 Oct 14 - 08:19 AM Why don't you ask for an example of someone who puts their pants on one leg at a time? I know this game... I give you one, you Google up a response and feel you've won. Nope. Boswell's book is thoroughly referenced to hundreds of original sources. Read it, then refute it. No easy targets from me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 17 Oct 14 - 07:11 AM well, I suppose we were given one specific example from ancient history, and if we want to get anymore, a lot of reading is required....or whether the data therein supports the argument. maybe if , go to the library, [or greg], has read those books him/her self, a few more examples could be supplied, please . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Oct 14 - 05:19 AM Thanks. Is it just Cheyenne in the last thousand years? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Greg F. Date: 16 Oct 14 - 09:49 PM Could you help us all by revealing these "facts", Greg F? Mr/Ms Library beat me to it, Ed, but there's your answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 16 Oct 14 - 08:33 PM Ake and Smenkhkare, Sittin' in a tree, K-i-s-s-i-n-g |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,Library Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:22 PM No card? Get the Boswell classic at Amazon. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645?tag=io9amzn-20&ascsubtag=[postId|951140108[asin|0679751645[authorId|5717795175536518860[referrer|www.google.com[type|mod-title |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Musket Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:20 PM Are you saying Akenaton bowled from the pavillion end? I wondered why Alex worshipped and admired the old Pharaoh.... 😄😂😊☺️😅😆😎😸😹 💞💘👥 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST,Go to the Library Date: 16 Oct 14 - 06:19 PM Keith asks for historical evidence of SSM: Hope you have a library card Keith... Dynes, Wayne R. and Stephen Donaldson. 1992. Homosexuality in the Ancient World. New York, NY: Garland. Ishay, Micheline R. 2004. The History of Human Rights: From Ancient Times to the Globalization Era. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rupp, Leila J. "Toward a Global History of Same-Sex Sexuality." Journal of the History of Sexuality. Vol 10.2 (April 2001): 287-302. Vanita, Ruth. "'Wedding of Two Souls': Same-Sex Marriage and Hindu Traditions." Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion. Vol 20.2 (Fall 2004): 119-135. Lahey, Kathleen A., Kevin Alderson. Same-sex marriage: the personal and the political. Insomniac Press, 2000. Hinsch, Bret (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China. Kuefler, Mathew (2007). "The Marriage Revolution in Late Antiquity: The Theodosian Code and Later Roman Marriage Law". Journal of Family History 32 (4): 343–370 Eskridge, William N. (Oct 1993). "A History of Same-Sex Marriage". Virginia Law Review 79 (7). Please report back in a few months! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Don Firth Date: 16 Oct 14 - 05:32 PM In the second of Ed T's links above, in the list of "famous same-sex couples," I note the following: Akhenaten – formerly Amenhotep IV (pharaoh: 10th king, 18th dynasty)Coffee through my nose when I spotted that!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 03:52 PM Could you help us all by revealing these "facts", Greg F? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 03:09 PM There is plenty information of the global history of marriage on the internet, for those seeking information. Two examples below: origin of marriage History of Same Sex Marriage |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 14 - 02:26 PM Bill, any examples of Historical SSM? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 01:01 PM "Marriage is a contract that can be transacted in church or by the government" Well yes- but to be considered a legal marriage, government issues a licence at some point. Some churches do not recognize government issuedivorces but, this does not alter the legal status outside that church.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: GUEST Date: 16 Oct 14 - 12:59 PM "So what other behaviors should be allowed? Should the supreme court allow pedophilia?" Of course not. This is about consenting ADULTS. Children, by definition, can't give consent. Stop parroting this idiotic false-analogy argument fomented by senile old tools like Pat Robertson. "Skin color and gender are conditions of birth, but where you stick your wang isn't. It may be a compulsion, but so is binging on your favorite sweet. You control those things." Sexual orientation is not a choice. If you think it is, then please - tell me when you "decided" you were heterosexual? JeffK627 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Ed T Date: 16 Oct 14 - 12:34 PM ""Sewell is just an example of a normal and intelligent person who does not yet accept SSM"" Maybe, there are a few other things that Brian Sewell does not get? Note his quote below: ".".. There has never been a first-rank woman artist.Only men are capable of aesthetic greatness. Women make up 50 per cent or more of classes at art school. Yet they fade away in their late 20s or 30s. Maybe it's something to do with bearing children."" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Supreme Court & gay marriage decision From: Bill D Date: 16 Oct 14 - 11:58 AM Keith says: "Society's mores are always but slowly changing. They never have and never will change for everyone on the same day." But embedded in that seems to be the idea that laws allowing those whose mores HAVE changed to live their lives as they wish should not change until the rest of the slow ones catch up! "marriage is much older than Christianity, and it has always been between man and woman until now." No, it has NOT 'always' been any such thing. It has usually been controlled by churches... who put their stamp on it.... which served to fairly effectively keep gay & lesbian couples from attempting open marriage. Simple descriptions of unfair practices of the past are being used to justify them! Countries, along with 'approved' churches, used to allow slavery, engage in wars of conquest, execute 'heretics', extort 'taxes' for the sole benefit of the rich, burn books that they did not like, refuse voting rights to women and other groups and imprison or execute people for minor offenses. These practices were wrong, even though they were common and 'slow to change'... and denying marriage rights has always been wrong, no matter who once controlled the process and pretended that 'control' constituted a 'definition'. The word signifies, as Muskets notes, a bond... not a limitation. |