Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Marriage, wonderful and unnatural (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Marriage, wonderful and unnatural
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Today, whites and blacks use the same bathrooms, but there's still words that distinguish white from black. As I proposed, marriages and same sex unions would use the same courtrooms, but words would distinguish same-sex unions from marriages.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
White people and black people.

[Heterosexual] marriage and same-sex marriage.

Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm fine with that breakdown. What I utterly reject is a legal definition of marriage as any "union of two persons."

Note that the Goodridge atrocity, literally read, would allow a human being to marry a corporation. Preemptive kick in the butt to the twit who misses the joke and pretends that I just made a slippery slope argument.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
If you are in favor of civil unions that duplicate marriage in every relevant governmental aspect, then that argument falls away. However, you then have the white bathrooms and black bathrooms. Equal in every physical way except the signs on the doors, but society makes it very clear that one is superior.

To put it in concrete terms, you run the risk of getting what happened in New Jersey; there, though mostly providing the same state-level rights and responsibilities as marriage in theory, civil unions In practice failed to provide equal protection consistently to same-sex couples. Which is why the legislature was able to amend the marriage law to encompass gay unions so soon after implementing civil unions.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Note that the Goodridge atrocity, literally read, would allow a human being to marry a corporation."

Ignoring that being a straw man*, that argument really is the reason why human beings need to understand and accept each other. Otherwise the "letter of the law" will dictate how people can interact.

* The state argued that the main purpose of marriage is the bearing and raising of children, which if applied literally would delegitimize any marriage that did not strive to produce offspring or proved incapable of it. It also would imply that divorce should be disallowed or made into a crime after children were born to the married couple, since they would have violated the fundamental intent of the legal marriage contract they committed to.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a straw man because I did not claim or imply that was the intent of the goodridge atrocity. The Goodridge gang of four were simply lazy with their language and did not really give a floundering fock about the long-term ramifications of their decision. They didn't even bother to do a comprehensive study of the various laws and regulations that would be affected. Just phony overview, grotesque misreading of Loving v. Virginia, a diametric misreading of Lawrence v. Texas, two false analogies, the red herring re sterility, and a grotesque well poisoning straw man re the motives of those that oppose ssm. The whole opinion made iragiray look literate.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So get over it and move on with your life. It's not like there aren't other poorly-written court decisions out there of way more import that you could be fixating on.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you exercising selective memory or do no actually not remember what I said about Smith v. Employment, or how I exoriated Scalia for his hypocritical betrayal of federalism in the Rausch medical marijuana case? Or Justice Stephens for his transparent attempt to revive intersectarian hatred in his Allegheny grinch-fest? Or the fact that our concept of judicial activism was conceived in the notorious Dredd Scott decision, while substantive due process was the brainchild of right-wing plutocrats in the Lochner atrocity?

I love bashing bad court decisions. Goodridge stands out in my discussions here primarily because we discuss ssm more than other issues. And because at least one election has turned on it, and because the upcoming election is likely to turn on it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The upcoming election is definitely not going to turn on same-sex marriage; that ship has sailed. Religious conservatives simply don't have the votes to do more than poison the Republican primary.

If Republicans are smart and cynical enough, this election might turn on questions of federal power. But only if they're very stupid will they try to make this into a "Christians vs. the bad people" election again.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The upcoming election is definitely not going to turn on same-sex marriage; that ship has sailed.

Keep telling yourself that, Tom. [Smile]


quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
But only if they're very stupid will they try to make this into a "Christians vs. the bad people" election again.

I agree. Fortunately, Christians aren't the only ones who recognize that kids need a mom and a dad. Nor do all Christians make such a recognition! (though I do sometimes wonder why the Christians who support ssm on this board don't speak up for themselves when folks like you turn the ssm debate into a parody of Christianity.)

"folks like you" not meaning bad folks, but folks exhibiting one specific set of quirks and failings. It's a line that doesn't often get used on me since my own set of quirks and failings are fairly unique. [Frown]

[ February 19, 2012, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If real marriage is such a uniquely Christian proposition, then why don't we see ssm popping up in traditionally Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Taoist, Animist, and Atheist cultures? Didn't ssm first appear in the Netherlands, where the two most powerful political parties are the Christian democrats and the Christian whatevers? Like I've observed before, you really should spend some times outside gringolandia, get some perspective.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, I sometimes find myself wondering whether you are really so naive as to not understand the cynical way in which same-sex marriage is used by Christians in this country as just another wedge issue for the purposes of smug self-identification and/or WASPy polling panic. Next time you're voting in the Netherlands, let me know how that goes for you. [Smile]

(Unless of course you're suggesting that the Religious Right in this country claims to be some religion that isn't Christian. Which would be naive in a different way, I suppose.)

[ February 19, 2012, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
same-sex marriage is used by Christians in this country as just another wedge issue for the purposes of smug self-identification and/or WASPy polling panic.
I do understand that some Christians use it that way. I don't use it that way. Nor do most Christians. Nor do most supporters of ssm. And cynical exploitation, smug-self-identification and polling panic are rife among ssm proponents as well.

I've told you before that I don't much like climbing in bed with the religions right on an issue, which is why in past discussions I used to try to hard to pull ssm moderates into a compromise involving federal ssus.

Given the pre-election timing of this 9th Circuit decision, it may be too late for such a compromise. And I'm too tired to put the work into it anymore. But I did try, for years, and I'm disappointed that it's come down to this.

Tell you what.

Why don't you fish around this board, and find me some US citizens who believe strongly for ssms and would vote for Romney because of other issues, or one who strongly opposes SSM, but will vote for Obama because of other issues. Then let's talk about whether ssm is going to be a major election issue.

If SSM is popular anywhere, then were are the pro-ssm referendums? <crickets chirping>

Do you really think that Michigan and Oregon were bastions of the Christian right when they enacted popular referendums to protect the definition of marriage?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anti-SSM is a wedge issue, but only one of many being used to cast Democrats as The Other. This has been going on since the mid-90's (thank you, Mr. Gingrich), but has only intensified over time. This view of the world held by people on the right is epitomized and personified most recently by Santorum when he claims that Obama has adopted "some phony theology, not a theology based on the Bible" by merely wanting to make contraceptives available to all women who want them. That argument is mirrored in the House where Issa refused to let a single woman appear before his committee seeking to overturn Obama's contraceptive decision. His phony argument is that the hearings are not about reproductive rights. Instead he tied the hearings to the issue of separation of church and state, but one wonders how access to contraceptives can be separated from women's reproductive rights, but I'm sure Santorum would agree with him.

Santorum's rise in the GOP primaries is entirely due to this kind of arch-religious intolerance masquerading as patriotism and divisive thinking that appeals to the most active wing of that party.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Anti-SSM is a wedge issue, but only one of many being used to cast Democrats as The Other.

In fact, as demonstrated in Michigan and in Oregon, even most Democrats oppose ssm.

If you could add the number of persons who support ssm to the numbers who myself who support ssus, we'd have a majority, and it would be the reasonable middle against the uncompromising extremes. But the window for compromise is closing, if it's not already too late.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That argument is mirrored in the House where Issa refused to let a single woman appear before his committee seeking to overturn Obama's contraceptive decision.
Issa? Who dat? references? Sounds like an interesting story.

We fighting over contraceptives? Really?

Why handcuff them to employment medical care anyway? Don't the unemployed have as much need for birth control as the employed? Rather than trying to make the Catholic church pay them, why don't we simply make it illegal to manufacture or sell balloons that can't function as a condom?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why doesn't it influence you that so many people are in favor of SSM? You aren't fighting it to overcome a principle, you're fighting people who want SSM for themselves or for others who want it. I wish you would ask instead of should SSM be allowed, would you want it for yourself? The answer would be no, and then you could ignore how other people feel about it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It does influence me, although there are competing influences. It would be much harder for me to hold my position, or to persuade others, if ssm focused on the stories of gay couples that had received marriage status, and what that accomplished for them. It's much easier to fight a movement that's primarily based on showing people who agree with me to be evil bigoted bugbears. Hell, on the terms of the Goodridge atrocity, we don't have much of a choice but to fight.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

I don't think you or people who are against ssm are evil bigoted bugbears. (At least not because of your views on ssm;)

Maybe we are talking past each other, but I think you have said marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That implicitly excludes gay couples, and I think a government institution should not do that.

[quote]Today, whites and blacks use the same bathrooms, but there's still words that dis

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by velcro:
Pete,

I don't think you or people who are against ssm are evil bigoted bugbears.

Good, because I don't think that you think that. I was referring to the position of the Goodridge gang of four and its misbegotten progeny, including the most recent c9 decision, based on a broken analogy to Loving v. Virginia, asserting that anyone who wants marriage protected from a radical redefinition, must be motivated by anti-gay animus.

If you interpreted what I said as projecting that opinion on you, then I wholeheartedly apologize for the miscommunication.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Maybe we are talking past each other, but I think you have said marriage is defined as between a man and woman. That implicitly excludes gay couples
Marriage also excludes single people, and also includes hetero couples who have not made a lifetime commitment.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there, Pete.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The point is that marriage is a description of a union between a man and a woman. Nothing in that says anything for or against homosexual couples participating in a similar institution with similar rights. Or even identical for that matter. It’s a pretty clear point and from a technical stand point I agree there is nothing wrong, or sinister or even rude about it.

The counter to it is the use of the word has or is evolving to encompass both. That tide may or may not continue despite the definition. The more important question is, should our law react to the use of the word or to one definition of the word that may have a rich and extensive history? The reasons for changing or expanding the law to be inclusive of SSM is, in my opinion, a matter of social acceptance and equality. The reasons against holding to a strict definition, in my opinion, do not impact the lives and happiness of people other than those irritated about the abuse of language at the hands of the masses, politicians and judges.

But I'm repeating myself from another thread, sorry bout that.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
The point is that marriage is a description of a union between a man and a woman. Nothing in that says anything for or against homosexual couples participating in a similar institution with similar rights. Or even identical for that matter.

Agreed!

Marriage is at its core about two things -- about union of the sexes, and about a lifelong commitment.

If a gay couple wants to emulate marriage, hell, I commend them on their good judgment.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, that marriage is a description of a union between a man and a woman doesn't stop marriage from also being a description of a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. [Smile]

Although the use of the word 'description' is a bit clumsy in these contexts.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wasn't stating my opinion there Pete. I was trying to explain yours for Tom. [Wink] In fact, I totally reject the conclusion even though I apparently finally grasp your argument.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
I wasn't stating my opinion there Pete. I was trying to explain yours for Tom. [Wink] In fact, I totally reject the conclusion even though I apparently finally grasp your argument.

Yay! Mission accomplished.

So how is it that you've got so many years here under your belt and so few posts until now? Did you do time, or do you just come out for election years? [Wink]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Of course, that marriage is a description of a union between a man and a woman doesn't stop marriage from also being a description of a union between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. [Smile]

Ah, now that's probably true as well; language is rich with such analogies. But it all falls apart if the government defines marriage as any union between two persons. At that point, meaning falls away and gibberish reigns.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I lurk a lot. Also I read and post a lot from work which is a bad habbit that guilt keeps in check when my work load is heavy.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hear you, brother.

Edited to add: or sister, as the case may be ...

[ February 20, 2012, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
At that point, meaning falls away and gibberish reigns.

This is very true - subjectively. If you cannot get your head around the concept, then it just might be meaningless.

For other people, however, the idea poses no particular challenge; to them, that you fail to understand the concept is far more confusing, especially given your insight in other areas. Why should a legal definition being in harmony with a linguistic one be so hard to understand?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think that Orwell's issues with "war is peace," "freedom is slavery," etc. were that the ideas were "hard to understand," Donald. Simplifications may gibber.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, if you feel that a statement is a case of 'gibbering', that would suggest you feel that the statement is meaningless.

However, as many people here have explained to you, these statements have a very clear meaning. In your case, your 'lack of understanding' seems to be more an instance of refusing to accept the clear meaning of your interlocutors because you do not accept the same definition of the word.

Which would be fine, except you then use the term 'gibber' to characterize the definition that you understand but disagree with. So we are left with the possibility that a) you really don't understand that to many people the word 'marriage' can describe MF, MM and FF couples or b) you are being disingenuous.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a statement means two conflicting things at once, that is also gibberish. Even though you might argue at one time, that it means one thing, and at another, that it means another, depending on the political convenience of the moment. At which point you should revisit the question of who is being disingenuous.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On a related note, it's not altogether clear nor 'genuous' to quote a statement as if it came from an opponent, when in fact it did not. I've not played the "I don't understand" game.

[ February 20, 2012, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who quoted you and where?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to be clear, what are these "two conflicting things at once" that you are referring to in this case?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
mar·riage   
noun
1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

It already means 5 things based upon www.dictionary.com and the conflict if present is not obvious to some of us.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which of those meanings of marriage applies, DW, when an SSM proponent says, "the government wont let gays get married"?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...just looking at those definitions and wondering if "bachelor" and "spinster" have always and always will be gender-specific.
Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1