If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Think gay marriage is a new thing? Guess again, Chester. Here's the story of two men who got legally married -- in 1971   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 74
    More: Interesting, Michael McConnell, marriages, gay rights activist, Defense of Marriage Act  
•       •       •

6354 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 2:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 12:35:48 AM  
Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.
 
2013-07-04 01:55:28 AM  
Interesting...learn something new everyday.
 
2013-07-04 02:12:34 AM  
FTFA:"It goes to the core of discrimination, you cannot let non-gay people treat you differently... you have to say 'I pay taxes to support this government and it is going to recognise me as an equal citizen or by God I'm going to disrupt that government.'"

Well, hell.  That kind of gets right down to it, doesn't it?  Stop farking me or we will have problems!
 
2013-07-04 02:13:07 AM  
Yeah, makes sense, that's about when the world started going to shiat.

/i keed
 
2013-07-04 02:14:24 AM  

RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.


I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).
 
2013-07-04 02:22:43 AM  
Gay marriage in the Christian church goes right back to its foundation, performed by the apostles if not Christ himself. It became less common after about the 14th century, but some still happened right up until the 17th or 18th centuries, even performed at the Vatican.
Its only relatively recently Xtians decided it was all ebil and stuff to marry the gays. Just like many of their 'ancient' and/or 'core' beliefs, most are only a couple hundred years old at the most.
 
2013-07-04 02:23:55 AM  
I just want to know why subby is calling the general fark public Chester... is this a gay Cheeto thing?
 
2013-07-04 02:24:47 AM  

sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).


I think the folks in the Middle East say that too. But only now do we know that they probably have some of the highest rates of homosexuality due to the fact the men can't even get close to a woman without permission...
 
2013-07-04 02:30:18 AM  
The simple fact that one of those guys used a gender-neutral name and the marriage certificate sailed thought the bureaucracy proves how important preserving straight marriages and denying gay marriages is.  I know several guys named Pat, and a couple of gals named Tommy and Billie.  Gayness everywhere!!
 
2013-07-04 02:35:57 AM  

sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).


i108.photobucket.com

Best thing about this image: the fact that they felt they had to specify it was "used by lesbians".
 
2013-07-04 02:40:45 AM  

ng2810: sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).

I think the folks in the Middle East say that too. But only now do we know that they probably have some of the highest rates of homosexuality due to the fact the men can't even get close to a woman without permission...


Homosexuality was also historically accepted in Japan except for a brief time during the early Meiji period, mostly due to foreign influences.
 
2013-07-04 02:41:14 AM  
So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.
 
2013-07-04 02:41:50 AM  
Gunther: I collect unusual jade objects as a side hobby and I must say that is... interesting. It doesn't look like jade though maybe basalt.
 
2013-07-04 02:43:11 AM  

sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).


One is disgusting and makes me want to vomit. And the other is gay marriage.
 
2013-07-04 02:43:18 AM  

CliChe Guevara: Its only relatively recently Xtians decided it was all ebil and stuff to marry the gays. Just like many of their 'ancient' and/or 'core' beliefs, most are only a couple hundred years old at the most.


But it's also kind of recent that "GoodSex" was defined by Xtians as vaginal, missionary, give-her-a-kiss when you're done sex.  If either of you touch a butthole, you go to hell.  If anybody involved enjoyed any part of it, you're going to hell.  If a mouth goes south of a chin or a crotch goes north of a belt, somebodies going to hell.  It pretty much comes down to "Did you like that?"  if you say yes, you're going to hell.
 
2013-07-04 02:45:37 AM  

rynthetyn: So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.


Sometimes progress is swift, it only took us 66 years to go from powered heavier than air flight landing on our moon. Which just boggles the mind if you really think about it.
 
2013-07-04 02:47:58 AM  

Gunther: sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).

[i108.photobucket.com image 483x294]

Best thing about this image: the fact that they felt they had to specify it was "used by lesbians".


Are you kidding me?  Now I got Penis Envy from an ancient artifact?  Goddammitsomuch!
 
2013-07-04 02:51:38 AM  
I thought it was awesome that the couple (two adorable cuties!) are still together. Gives me the fuzzy wuzzies. Sigh.
 
2013-07-04 02:55:52 AM  

Aquapope: "GoodSex" was defined by Xtians as vaginal, missionary, give-her-a-kiss when you're done sex.  If either of you touch a butthole, you go to hell.  If anybody involved enjoyed any part of it, you're going to hell.  If a mouth goes south of a chin or a crotch goes north of a belt, somebodies going to hell.  It pretty much comes down to "Did you like that?"  if you say yes, you're going to hell.


Dang.

Where'd you go to church?

Mine hoped you got married first, sure. After that it was go ahead and get your freak on.

/ Lutheran
 
2013-07-04 02:58:10 AM  
*Ahem* You may have a bit of difficulty calling them "gay" marriages, but cultures around the world have had same-sex marriage for sometime, with some rather interesting ways of accounting for the fact that if the "wife" is barren the husband can divorce. Anthropology is awesome to study.

/look up berdache, the sworn virgins, two-spirit, hijras, etc. Cultures have been adapting gender roles to account for outsiders for a long time.
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-07-04 03:01:45 AM  

TomD9938: Lutheran


Ha!  I attended a Lutheran school.  Got mugged three times IN THE SCHOOL, which was nothing more than a large church!!!


(100% True)
 
2013-07-04 03:06:09 AM  

rynthetyn: So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.


The reason that the Supreme Court didn't hear their case wasn't that it was absurd, but because they couldn't see any reason for the federal government to get involved in any sort of marriage issue since it was within the legal domain of the state.  The reason the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage is that the federal government had already gotten involved in marriage specifically to disenfranchise and punish a specific segment of the population.
 
2013-07-04 03:08:17 AM  

TomD9938: Aquapope: "GoodSex" was defined by Xtians as vaginal, missionary, give-her-a-kiss when you're done sex.  If either of you touch a butthole, you go to hell.  If anybody involved enjoyed any part of it, you're going to hell.  If a mouth goes south of a chin or a crotch goes north of a belt, somebodies going to hell.  It pretty much comes down to "Did you like that?"  if you say yes, you're going to hell.

Dang.

Where'd you go to church?

Mine hoped you got married first, sure. After that it was go ahead and get your freak on.

/ Lutheran


Sounds like Southern Baptist.
 
2013-07-04 03:20:37 AM  

Peki: *Ahem* You may have a bit of difficulty calling them "gay" marriages, but cultures around the world have had same-sex marriage for sometime, with some rather interesting ways of accounting for the fact that if the "wife" is barren the husband can divorce. Anthropology is awesome to study.

/look up berdache, the sworn virgins, two-spirit, hijras, etc. Cultures have been adapting gender roles to account for outsiders for a long time.


Well, yeah... I was surprised to see the article only went back to the 70s. However, I probably wouldn't line up same sex relationships with phenomena like the berdache, etc. Plenty of homosexuals are pretty rooted in gender roles that match their biology.
 
2013-07-04 03:20:54 AM  

LrdPhoenix: rynthetyn: So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.

The reason that the Supreme Court didn't hear their case wasn't that it was absurd, but because they couldn't see any reason for the federal government to get involved in any sort of marriage issue since it was within the legal domain of the state.  The reason the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage is that the federal government had already gotten involved in marriage specifically to disenfranchise and punish a specific segment of the population.


Not so. The federal government had just gotten involved in state marriage issues not even 5 years before with Loving. It wasn't just a jurisdictional issue.
 
2013-07-04 03:21:53 AM  

randomjsa: TomD9938: Aquapope: "GoodSex" was defined by Xtians as vaginal, missionary, give-her-a-kiss when you're done sex.  If either of you touch a butthole, you go to hell.  If anybody involved enjoyed any part of it, you're going to hell.  If a mouth goes south of a chin or a crotch goes north of a belt, somebodies going to hell.  It pretty much comes down to "Did you like that?"  if you say yes, you're going to hell.

Dang.

Where'd you go to church?

Mine hoped you got married first, sure. After that it was go ahead and get your freak on.

/ Lutheran

Sounds like Southern Baptist.


I have one word for you both: Mormons.

/ex-Mormon, fits the stereotype to a t
 
2013-07-04 03:23:35 AM  

middleoftheday: Peki: *Ahem* You may have a bit of difficulty calling them "gay" marriages, but cultures around the world have had same-sex marriage for sometime, with some rather interesting ways of accounting for the fact that if the "wife" is barren the husband can divorce. Anthropology is awesome to study.

/look up berdache, the sworn virgins, two-spirit, hijras, etc. Cultures have been adapting gender roles to account for outsiders for a long time.

Well, yeah... I was surprised to see the article only went back to the 70s. However, I probably wouldn't line up same sex relationships with phenomena like the berdache, etc. Plenty of homosexuals are pretty rooted in gender roles that match their biology.


That's why I stuck with "same-sex" marriage and hedged on "gay" marriage. Same-sex couples weren't considered "gay" so long as traditional gender roles were maintained.
 
2013-07-04 03:37:40 AM  
So this whole public furore (in the US anyway) could have been avoided if one of the participants had changed their name and a celebrant had looked the other way.

Now what if we got those brown people to bleach their skin?

We can fix everything with a bit of superficial landscaping.
 
2013-07-04 03:38:24 AM  

berylman: Gunther: I collect unusual jade objects as a side hobby and I must say that is... interesting. It doesn't look like jade though maybe basalt.


The term "jade" is not consistently applied; there is more than one mineral referred to by that name in different places, and in some contexts the definition is broadened to apply to any stone suitable for carving.
 
2013-07-04 03:43:48 AM  

berylman: Gunther: I collect unusual jade objects as a side hobby and I must say that is... interesting. It doesn't look like jade though maybe basalt.


It's been places.
 
2013-07-04 03:46:12 AM  

rynthetyn: LrdPhoenix: rynthetyn: So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.

The reason that the Supreme Court didn't hear their case wasn't that it was absurd, but because they couldn't see any reason for the federal government to get involved in any sort of marriage issue since it was within the legal domain of the state.  The reason the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage is that the federal government had already gotten involved in marriage specifically to disenfranchise and punish a specific segment of the population.

Not so. The federal government had just gotten involved in state marriage issues not even 5 years before with Loving. It wasn't just a jurisdictional issue.


Loving v. Virginia was a little different.  Because men and women unquestioningly already have the legal right to marry each other, imprisoning someone because they married and had children with someone of the opposite sex violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.  I also doubt they would have likely heard the case if they had requested to get married and were simply denied, rather than getting married and then getting sentenced to jail for a year because of it.
 
2013-07-04 03:46:49 AM  

LrdPhoenix: rynthetyn: LrdPhoenix: rynthetyn: So, in just over 40 years we go from the Supreme Court refusing to even consider a same-sex marriage case because the idea that two people of the same sex could get married was so absurd it wasn't up for consideration as a substantial federal question to the Supreme Court ruling that the federal government has to recognize legal same-sex marriages. That's actually a lightning fast swing in society and the court.

The reason that the Supreme Court didn't hear their case wasn't that it was absurd, but because they couldn't see any reason for the federal government to get involved in any sort of marriage issue since it was within the legal domain of the state.  The reason the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to recognize same sex marriage is that the federal government had already gotten involved in marriage specifically to disenfranchise and punish a specific segment of the population.

Not so. The federal government had just gotten involved in state marriage issues not even 5 years before with Loving. It wasn't just a jurisdictional issue.

Loving v. Virginia was a little different.  Because men and women unquestioningly already have the legal right to marry each other, imprisoning someone because they married and had children with someone of the opposite sex another race violates the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment.  I also doubt they would have likely heard the case if they had requested to get married and were simply denied, rather than getting married and then getting sentenced to jail for a year because of it.


FTFM
 
2013-07-04 03:47:00 AM  
flondrix:The term "jade" is not consistently applied; there is more than one mineral referred to by that name in different places, and in some contexts the definition is broadened to apply to any stone suitable for carving.
Ya I know, basically any cuttable stone is 'jade' without description. Not that elemental analysis was available in the Han dynasty. What I find truly awesome is the jadeite from NZ. That is some gorgeous stuff but with no history.
 
2013-07-04 03:47:18 AM  

randomjsa: Sounds like Southern Baptist.


Not according to the Southern Baptist friends I have (we agree not to talk about religion or politics generally, and they're a lot more tolerant of gays then you'd think). Blissfully married couples. All have that annoying newlywed glow, two of them almost two decades after being married.

I'm stuck as an agnostic. Oh well, get some more options and play. I won't put down what they have, though.
 
2013-07-04 03:48:19 AM  

randomjsa: Sounds like Southern Baptist.


Q:Why do you always take at least 2 Southern Baptists with you when you go fishing?
A:Because if you take one, he'll drink all the beer.

Nope, never a Baptist, Southern or othewise,.  I have nothing but hate for that flavor of xtianity.
 
2013-07-04 03:54:27 AM  

RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.


The Ohlone and Pomo Indians who inhabited the area I live in (before they were exterminated by bounty) used to recognize same sex marriage.  Why the hangups of Palestinians are supposed to matter to me, I can't figure out.
 
2013-07-04 03:57:06 AM  

KenShabby: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

The Ohlone and Pomo Indians who inhabited the area I live in (before they were exterminated by bounty) used to recognize same sex marriage.  Why the hangups of Palestinians are supposed to matter to me, I can't figure out.


But those guys were non-Christians, so what's your question?
 
2013-07-04 03:58:56 AM  
Most of the current set of strict definitions of marriage in came out of attempts to run off Mormons and it worked so well, it was used for other types of discrimination.
 
2013-07-04 04:05:11 AM  

DON.MAC: Most of the current set of strict definitions of marriage in came out of attempts to run off Mormons and it worked so well, it was used for other types of discrimination.


Yet they still come to my door at 8am on Saturday
 
2013-07-04 04:07:26 AM  

Aquapope: KenShabby: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

The Ohlone and Pomo Indians who inhabited the area I live in (before they were exterminated by bounty) used to recognize same sex marriage.  Why the hangups of Palestinians are supposed to matter to me, I can't figure out.

But those guys were non-Christians, so what's your question?


Good question.  I guess it would be, "why do we assume all civilization came out of Jerusalem 2000 years ago?"  Please don't tell me the answer. I know it, and it saddens me greatly...
 
2013-07-04 04:13:36 AM  

Peki: That's why I stuck with "same-sex" marriage and hedged on "gay" marriage. Same-sex couples weren't considered "gay" so long as traditional gender roles were maintained.


My point was that your statement "cultures have been adapting gender roles to account for outsiders for a long time" is problematic in the context of same sex marriage and gay rights as a whole.
 
2013-07-04 04:30:12 AM  

ng2810: sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).

I think the folks in the Middle East say that too. But only now do we know that they probably have some of the highest rates of homosexuality due to the fact the men can't even get close to a woman without permission...


Denial is a powerful force the world over.  I remember sitting next to a gay couple in Birganj at dinner with another Nepali guy who was explaining that homosexuality didn't exist in Nepal.  He was less than 2 meters from a gay Nepali couple as he pontificated.

Another example is the worldwide "men who have sex with men" (but deny that they're homosexual) phenomenon.
 
2013-07-04 04:38:38 AM  

middleoftheday: Peki: That's why I stuck with "same-sex" marriage and hedged on "gay" marriage. Same-sex couples weren't considered "gay" so long as traditional gender roles were maintained.

My point was that your statement "cultures have been adapting gender roles to account for outsiders for a long time" is problematic in the context of same sex marriage and gay rights as a whole.


Clarify? I'm not seeing the incongruity? My guess is we're miscommunicating between gender and sex. In older cultures, the genders were different, even if the sexes were the same, so it was considered acceptable for the time. In modern cultures, it's still very similar, though, yes, you do see two men in traditional masculine roles (think two bears) getting together.

That disconnect happened when we started thinking of marriage in terms of happiness (about the mid-1800s or so). That's when you see the real kick towards homosexuality being accepted, because suddenly being happy in a marriage was important. Prior? Who gave a shiat, it was about survival then.
 
2013-07-04 04:58:39 AM  

berylman: I just want to know why subby is calling the general fark public Chester... is this a gay Cheeto thing?


Yeh, wtf is this? "Chester"? When did that become something?
 
2013-07-04 05:22:02 AM  
But soon afterwards he began to get hate mail from across the country.

The Christians missed the moral high road again.
 
2013-07-04 05:35:59 AM  
CSB with cobwebs on it, but still, I'd never heard of it.
 
2013-07-04 06:30:48 AM  
Great story!
 
2013-07-04 06:38:43 AM  

Gunther: sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).

[i108.photobucket.com image 483x294]

Best thing about this image: the fact that they felt they had to specify it was "used by lesbians".


How do you pronounce "ASS TO ASS!" in ancient Mandarin?
 
2013-07-04 06:44:17 AM  

ciberido: ng2810: sendtodave: RevMercutio: Gay marriage goes back to the Zhou Dynasty in China. That's 250 B.C.

I have been informed by many Chinese youth that homosexuality is a western perversion, like McDonalds.  It doesn't now, and thus never has, existed in China (because China doesn't change).

I think the folks in the Middle East say that too. But only now do we know that they probably have some of the highest rates of homosexuality due to the fact the men can't even get close to a woman without permission...

Denial is a powerful force the world over.  I remember sitting next to a gay couple in Birganj at dinner with another Nepali guy who was explaining that homosexuality didn't exist in Nepal.  He was less than 2 meters from a gay Nepali couple as he pontificated.

Another example is the worldwide "men who have sex with men" (but deny that they're homosexual) phenomenon.


That last part more like rabid delusion instead of denial. "Sure, I like sitting on hard, throbbing cocks and getting teabagged by a hairy nutsack, but I am totally not a homo, dude!"
 
2013-07-04 07:00:14 AM  
Tricking bureaucrat into issuing a permit makes nothing legal.     Those men were NOT legally married in 1971.  
Indeed tricking the bureaucrats into issuing permits that you know that are not allowed to issue is in and of itself highly illegal.

The only way this could have legally worked would to have been up front that it was a same-sex marriage, get denied, and take the denial to court over constitutional grounds.   Of course in 1971 that would have failed.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report