Your thoughts on gay rights?

I'm late to the party, but I'm glad to read that many of you on this site are sensible people.

Just some biology to mess with y'all minds.

Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition?

Textbook wrote: Did he just try to give us the etymology of the word matrimony as a reason why we can't now revise its definition? In the words of bugs bunny, what a maroon.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - April 16 2012 at 23:12

It's Don Quijote, not Quixote, please. 

Textbook wrote: What was done in the past and why is important/interesting in allowing us to understand our world but when it comes to what we should be doing and what we want to do now, we should not be afraid to throw the past in the trash if necessary. So the Europeans and the Spanish and the Romans may have done such and such because such and such, but if we have different values and beliefs from them, why should we imitate them? We can surely build on or edit what they did.

We don't believe it's necessary to throw all the past to the trash, we are not USA or Europe, we have our own legal system, ideas that have their roots in other systems, but adapted to our identity.

The T wrote: Textbook wrote: OK, so what is blue? Or do you think that needs its own thread?   BTW, read it and weep. Title page of first edition, says Quixote.   Good point. But the usage of the "x" in Spanish (castellano is the actual name of the language) has disappeared and replaced by the "J". But I'll take your explanation.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Also in our law (And in all Roman law), the essence of the marriage is at least the possibility of procreation (Not religious, legal)

So castration implies divorce? How is the possibility of procreation monitored during marriage? What about elderly women?

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Textbook wrote: What was done in the past and why is important/interesting in allowing us to understand our world but when it comes to what we should be doing and what we want to do now, we should not be afraid to throw the past in the trash if necessary. So the Europeans and the Spanish and the Romans may have done such and such because such and such, but if we have different values and beliefs from them, why should we imitate them? We can surely build on or edit what they did. We don't believe it's necessary to throw all the past to the trash, we are not USA or Europe, we have our own legal system, ideas that have their roots in other systems, but adapted to our identity.

Textbook wrote: I didn't say it was necessary to throw the past in the trash, my meaning was that if something needs to be changed, change it.   Ivan: Yeah I know executing women for being witches is a bit silly but it was part of our legal system in the past so we should still do it today.

The UK repealed witchcraft laws in 1951 a mere 216 years after it was created and the last woman tried for witchcraft was Helen Duncan in 1944 - she was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment. In terms of history that was a pretty recent change in law. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the UK in 1967, it was another 36 years before homosexual sex (and anal sex between heterosexuals) was fully decriminalised. Gay marriage is another very recent change in UK law, and that is a civil marriage recognised only through law. Again, in terms of history they were all recent changes in law and an indication that laws do not change overnight even in our statute/common law system - it took an Act of Parliment to change the law.