US Supreme Ct to decide Gay Marriage is a Constitutional right

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sirlynchmob**

Medium of Death wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

trying tell others how to live and who they can or can not marry is dumb. Hasn't it been legal in Scotland for a year now? Tell me, how has that decision negatively affected your life since then? Why do you think it must be agreeable to you? If you don't like it, don't do it. Thinking your opinion should matter to other people is dumb.

Tell me, how do these legal marriages fit into the definitions you choose.
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

there's states like north carolina with a church doing this:
http://gawker.com/5991270/north-carolina-church-refuses-to-perform-straight-marriages-until-this-right-is-granted-to-same-sex-couples

same sex marriages were happening long before christianity became a fad. Religions are not being co opted, and it is not mandatory for churches to perform them. Some churches willing and openly support marriage equality, and willing open their doors for everyone. Even the bible has a same sex marriage in it. 1 Samuel 18:1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. It doesn't have to make sense to you, Anyone can be religious, regardless of sexual orientation, or how you identify yourself.

there's thousands of things people do that make no sense to me, but as none of those things negatively affect me or those around me I have no basis to disagree with them. Nor would I try to force my opinions on those things into law.

**Hordini**

d-usa wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

I assume it's not the case in an LGBT (What's the Q for?) churches?

IIRC, it's queer. Which I think means some where in the middle?

Medium of Death wrote:Gay and Queer aren't the same any more? Duly noted.

No, the Q stands for "Questioning," not Queer. Gay and Queer are still the same.

My understanding is that queer boils down to "something non-binary gender attracted to something" with the main point being that gay and lesbian fit into this best "boy/girl" box and that if you don't then you are excluded in the LGBT acronym, and "queer" became a term for "other".

Or something like that...

I think gay and lesbian fall under queer, but queer doesn't exclusively refer to gay and lesbian, if that makes sense. I probably should have been clearer in my previous post.

**Baxx**

Rainbow Dash wrote:

I can respect that viewpoint, religion is like a club, if you don't want to follow the club's rules, don't join the club.
When the club starts getting its rules involved in your life when you don't want them...then that's where the problems start, to me.

And if you won't join the club, you'll get smacked in the head by it.

**Medium of Death**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

trying tell others how to live and who they can or can not marry is dumb. Hasn't it been legal in Scotland for a year now? Tell me, how has that decision negatively affected your life since then? Why do you think it must be agreeable to you? If you don't like it, don't do it. Thinking your opinion should matter to other people is dumb.

Tell me, how do these legal marriages fit into the definitions you choose.
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

there's states like north carolina with a church doing this:
http://gawker.com/5991270/north-carolina-church-refuses-to-perform-straight-marriages-until-this-right-is-granted-to-same-sex-couples

same sex marriages were happening long before christianity became a fad. Religions are not being co opted, and it is not mandatory for churches to perform them. Some churches willing and openly support marriage equality, and willing open their doors for everyone. Even the bible has a same sex marriage in it. 1 Samuel 18:1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. It doesn't have to make sense to you, Anyone can be religious, regardless of sexual orientation, or how you identify yourself.

there's thousands of things people do that make no sense to me, but as none of those things negatively affect me or those around me I have no basis to disagree with them. Nor would I try to force my opinions on those things into law.

That quote saying the bible has same sex marriage in it seems pretty spurious.

It's a sign of a good argument when you attack the person posing the question, say dumb a lot and then post some clickbait articles. The first article seems to show various examples of mental illness...

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

Here's what I said a page back.

Medium of Death wrote:

People seem to shout down the argument that it's not right to accept Gay Marriage but never really say why it isn't right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=marry c.1300, "to give (offspring) in marriage," from Old French marier "to get married; to marry off, give in marriage; to bring together in marriage," from Latin maritare "to wed, marry, give in marriage" (source of Italian maritare, Spanish and Portuguese maridar), from maritus (n.) "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, originally a past participle, perhaps ultimately from "provided with a *mari," a young woman, from PIE root *mari- "young wife, young woman," akin to *meryo- "young man" (source of Sanskrit marya- "young man, suitor").

Meaning "to get married, join (with someone) in matrimony" is early 14c. in English, as is that of "to take in marriage." Said from 1520s of the priest, etc., who performs the rite. Figurative use from early 15c. Related: Married; marrying. Phrase the marrying kind, describing one inclined toward marriage and almost always used with a negative, is attested by 1824, probably short for marrying kind of men, which is from a popular 1756 essay by Chesterfield.

In some Indo-European languages there were distinct "marry" verbs for men and women, though some of these have become generalized. Compare Latin ducere uxorem (of men), literally "to lead a wife;" nubere (of women), perhaps originally "to veil" [Buck]. Also compare Old Norse kvangask (of men) from kvan "wife" (see quean), so, "take a wife;" giptask (of women), from gipta, a specialized use of "to give" (see gift (n.)), so, "to be given."

Seems marriage is pretty well defined to me. To suddenly change it, relatively overnight, should be expected to get some kind opposition.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

**reds8n**

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226067114/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=gwinscrea-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0226067114

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679751645/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=gwinscrea-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0679751645

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

**Medium of Death**

Homosexual man, who struggled to rationalise his faith with his sexuality, cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

I think the overwhelming amount of times that Gay Marriage hasn't been practiced would show that even if his claims are valid that it'd be the exception rather than the rule.

**reds8n**

Medium of Death wrote:
Homosexual man, who struggled to rationalise his faith with his sexuality, cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

It's a sign of a good argument when you attack the person.

....

Indeed.

**Medium of Death**

Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

Is calling him homosexual an attack or a fact?

Could it be the basis for him wanting to justifiably reconcile his sexuality and faith?

Try harder.

**dogma**

Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

This...

...cherry picks examples from history to promote agenda?

...is an obvious personal attack.

**reds8n**

Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

Cherry picking is a term he uses or of support is it ?

Try harder.

When your sole argument is in fact the development not of human beings and their relationships but of that of the ontology of linguistic development in a very small area of the world, and ignores the many changes that have already happened to marriage - even if we restrict it solely to the era post the definition you produced earlier involves, one would suggest that it is you who needs to "try harder" with regards to the topic at hand.

**streamdragon**

I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

**Medium of Death**

reds8n wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
Am I attacking him for restating what is written about him?

Cherry picking is a term he uses or of support is it ?

Try harder.

When your sole argument is in fact the development not of human beings and their relationships but of that of the ontology of linguistic development in a very small area of the world, and ignores the many changes that have already happened to marriage - even if we restrict it solely to the era post the definition you produced earlier involves, one would suggest that it is you who needs to "try harder" with regards to the topic at hand.

The exact debate is framed around an area of the world, the West, that has been dominated by Christianity for over a millennium. I feel that taking the European etymology of the word marriage to be pretty valid. This is especially so when I'm trying to put forward a point that there might be a reason that it is opposed by conservative Christians and that simply calling them "bigots" as a shut down is misplaced. Bigot now meaning "somebody who doesn't approve of me" rather than being intolerant. You can tolerate something without actually liking or endorsing it.

I would say it is cherry picked.

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias, also called myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, or recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses.

The kind of venomous shouting of "It's a legal term!", "Laws Change", "Times change, deal with it!" or that somehow that this is about individuals rather than rapid changes in society would really have me on the defensive if I were a conservative Christian. It doesn't really foster any kind of comfort that this isn't going to be forced upon those with conservative values in their places of worship or in their daily lives. If it isn't a religious term why is there a need for people to get married in Churches? Even typically non-religious people tend to go through the motions of religious ceremony for this very purpose.

**Frazzled**

streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

Really, THATS what you find hysterically funny? You should get out more.

**sirlynchmob**

Medium of Death wrote:

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

It's not being forced on anyone, no one is going to force you to do it.

The kind of venomous shouting of "It's a legal term!", "Laws Change", "Times change, deal with it!" or that somehow that this is about individuals rather than rapid changes in society would really have me on the defensive if I were a conservative Christian. It doesn't really foster any kind of comfort that this isn't going to be forced upon those with conservative values in their places of worship or in their daily lives. If it isn't a religious term why is there a need for people to get married in Churches? Even typically non-religious people tend to go through the motions of religious ceremony for this very purpose.

It is about individuals, especially in the states. if everyone accepted your logic here, interracial marriages would still be illegal, immoral, and leading to the downfall of mankind. It took 50ish years after the government stepped in and said interracial marriages are ok, for even most of society to accept it and deal with it, christians were wrong then and are just as wrong now, and in 50 years it will be just as accepted as a norm. What I find funny is the churches are using the same arguments they used against interracial marriages and recycled them for same sex marriages.

There is no need for anyone to get married in a church, there is no need to go through any ceremony. All you need is a friend to spend 10 mins online to become able to perform marriages ( your country may vary) sit down, sign the papers, done. Or even just live with someone long enough and you'll be considered married.

This whole idea it will be forced on anyone is sheer nonsense.

**reds8n**

Medium of Death wrote:

The exact debate is framed around an area of the world, the West, that has been dominated by Christianity for over a millennium. I feel that taking the European etymology of the word marriage to be pretty valid.

And that word just came out of nowhere did it ?

Or did that "evolve" too from an earlier term or phrase ?

This is especially so when I'm trying to put forward a point that there might be a reason that it is opposed by conservative Christians

Thus far you don't really appear to be doing that. I don't see what argument you're putting forwards other than A. Dictionary definition -- issues here you're more than aware of -- and B. some sort of general slippery slope argument ?

and that simply calling them "bigots" as a shut down is misplaced. Bigot now meaning "somebody who doesn't approve of me" rather than being intolerant. You can tolerate something without actually liking or endorsing it.

Quite right.

But when you want to actively prevent others from doing something because you don't like or agree with you step over the -- admittedly somewhat nebulous -- divide.

Or are saying we should outlaw or prohibit vegetarianism too ( for example ) ?

One would suggest even that it's far more likely that "going veggie" is something that's far more likely to be foisted or pushed upon others than gay marriage is.

And would appear to have less historical evidence for it being a common thing amongst humans -- at least in the regions we're referring to anyway.

The kind of venomous shouting of "It's a legal term!", "Laws Change", "Times change, deal with it!" or that somehow that this is about individuals rather than rapid changes in society would really have me on the defensive if I were a conservative Christian.

Quite possibly.

Of course those are true as well though.

As is the fact that marriage has changed from what has been in the past -- divorce and the rationale/commonality of being the main one -- and the issue of this one would suggest is pretty much the raison d'etre for a fairly significant branch of the Xtian faith that went on to have quite an immediate impact on the whole world.

We also -- in general -- don't marry off what we consider to be children to people they've never met in order to secure peace treaties or the like -- that often turn out not to be worth the parchment they're scribed upon.. alas ... -- as was done before in this region.

There's also, perhaps, an argument to be made that we expect/force people from outside the area we're talking about to conform to our norms and rules -- arranged marriages, polygamy and so forth being a no no -- but one suspects that's probably a bit too much of a tangent and not strictly relevant. So gonna leave that here.

It doesn't really foster any kind of comfort that this isn't going to be forced upon those with conservative values in their places of worship or in their daily lives. If it isn't a religious term why is there a need for people to get married in Churches? Even typically non-religious people tend to go through the motions of religious ceremony for this very purpose.

If we're going to go slippery slope was's more likely :

That a large and dominant group that crosses all sectors of society will, somehow, be forced to .. I dunno ..? Marry a gay ? For most people it will have no affect on their day to day lives. Anymore so than the latest celebrity Vegas marriage, people renewing their vows or indeed the existence/acceptance of secular marriages or even those of other faiths.

My understanding is that Churches/similar have been told they won't have to do X/Y/Z and really , fearmongering aside, one sees very little evidence that this is not the case or is going to change.

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And just below where you grabbed your info:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

**AlmightyWalrus**

Medium of Death wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:
MrDwhitey wrote:
That or more than one matter can be addressed at a time.

Maybe if some dumb bigots would stop being dumb bigots the matter would be resolved...

How ironic.

What is exactly "dumb" about not agreeing with Homosexual marriage?

I think the fear from those "bigots" is that it would somehow pervert their faith, with it being mandatory that they be allowed to marry in a church.

I'm not religious and I don't particularly hold "gay marriage" as on my top priority lists but the term is free range as far as I'm concerned. Religions need not be co-opted by this however.

I have no idea why you'd still want to take part in religion if you were gay. It makes little sense to me.

trying tell others how to live and who they can or can not marry is dumb. Hasn't it been legal in Scotland for a year now? Tell me, how has that decision negatively affected your life since then? Why do you think it must be agreeable to you? If you don't like it, don't do it. Thinking your opinion should matter to other people is dumb.

Tell me, how do these legal marriages fit into the definitions you choose.
http://thefw.com/weirdest-marriages-of-the-world-photos-videos/

there's states like north carolina with a church doing this:
http://gawker.com/5991270/north-carolina-church-refuses-to-perform-straight-marriages-until-this-right-is-granted-to-same-sex-couples

same sex marriages were happening long before christianity became a fad. Religions are not being co opted, and it is not mandatory for churches to perform them. Some churches willing and openly support marriage equality, and willing open their doors for everyone. Even the bible has a same sex marriage in it. 1 Samuel 18:1 Jonathan became one in spirit with David, and he loved him as himself. It doesn't have to make sense to you, Anyone can be religious, regardless of sexual orientation, or how you identify yourself.

there's thousands of things people do that make no sense to me, but as none of those things negatively affect me or those around me I have no basis to disagree with them. Nor would I try to force my opinions on those things into law.

That quote saying the bible has same sex marriage in it seems pretty spurious.

It's a sign of a good argument when you attack the person posing the question, say dumb a lot and then post some clickbait articles. The first article seems to show various examples of mental illness...

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

Here's what I said a page back.

Medium of Death wrote:

People seem to shout down the argument that it's not right to accept Gay Marriage but never really say why it isn't right to do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Etymology The word "marriage" derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250–1300 CE. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre meaning to provide with a husband or wife and marītāri meaning to get married. The adjective marīt-us -a, -um meaning matrimonial or nuptial could also be used in the masculine form as a noun for "husband" and in the feminine form for "wife."[5] The related word "matrimony" derives from the Old French word matremoine which appears around 1300 CE and ultimately derives from Latin mātrimōnium which combines the two concepts mater meaning "mother" and the suffix -monium signifying "action, state, or condition." "[6]

Seems marriage is pretty well defined to me. To suddenly change it, relatively overnight, should be expected to get some kind opposition.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Are you reading your own sources? Because it sure doesn't look like you do to me.

**streamdragon**

Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

Really, THATS what you find hysterically funny? You should get out more.

That and videos of people getting owned by their dogs. Nothing makes me laugh quite like a dude taking a nut shot from his dog.

**sirlynchmob**

CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And just below where you grabbed your info:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

Right, it wasn't legally accepted, but it was accepted in the eyes of god that they were married. It's a spiritual thing right? I bet it was a nice religious ceremony.

But you said it wasn't done, I found 2 cases where it was done.

(apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)

No legal standing for the common men, but the emperor's counted as his was apart from those.

You claim it never happened in europe, yet from the same article: Spain is in europe right?
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

But when you want to actively prevent others from doing something because you don't like or agree with you step over the -- admittedly somewhat nebulous -- divide.

I just have to quibble on that particular point. All societies do that all the time. Thats what laws are. By their nature they are limiting events.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

streamdragon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
streamdragon wrote:
I always find Christian fascination and glorification of marriage to be hysterically funny. I mean, look even to the middle ages, strongest era for the Church, and you see marriage was not about love, romance or anything it is commonly associated with now. It was about political maneuvering, shifting property, securing bloodlines and inheritance rights; in short: money and power.

So frelling romantic, that.

Really, THATS what you find hysterically funny? You should get out more.

That and videos of people getting owned by their dogs. Nothing makes me laugh quite like a dude taking a nut shot from his dog.

Well thankfully thats less of a common occurrence in the Frazzled household. Rusty the Mountain Dog does like to goose people in the butt as they go by though. For him that joke never gets old.

**reds8n**

Oh indeed.

IN fact one would suggest the essence of society is -- to a degree -- restriction and compromise.

And of course laws can be and are changed, even if it takes a long time.

**CptJake**

sirlynchmob wrote:
CptJake wrote:
sirlynchmob wrote:
Medium of Death wrote:

Same sex marriage has been a thing since forever? The Romans or Greeks didn't practice it, homosexual acts certainly were but not marriage, and I doubt it was practiced in Europe.

You can keep projecting that I have a problem with this if you like. I'm merely pointing out that screaming "bigot" isn't really going to make this argument go away. It only increases the feeling that this will be forced upon people.

Lets see, about the romans: You are incorrect.
At least two of the Roman Emperors were in same-sex unions; and in fact, thirteen out of the first fourteen Roman Emperors held to be bisexual or exclusively homosexual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And just below where you grabbed your info:

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).

Right, it wasn't legally accepted, but it was accepted in the eyes of god that they were married. It's a spiritual thing right? I bet it was a nice religious ceremony.

But you said it wasn't done, I found 2 cases where it was done.

(apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)
No legal standing for the common men, but the emperor's counted as his was apart from those.

You claim it never happened in europe, yet from the same article: Spain is in europe right?
A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.

Care to quote where I claimed any of the things you are saying I did? The post you just quoted is my only one in the topic so I would love to see you do so.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
Oh indeed.

IN fact one would suggest the essence of society is -- to a degree -- restriction and compromise.

And of course laws can be and are changed, even if it takes a long time.

This is true as well.

Personally I don't think SCOTUS should have taken this case. Its being settled remarkably quickly in the states, with public opinion and consensus shifting. Make some overarching court case and you risk pulling an RvW and freezing the controversy in place for decades. if SCOTUS really wanted, a better idea would have been to sit for five year years and then find a case, as the matter would effectively be settled then.

**SilverMK2**

Orlanth wrote:
Relgious freedom remains in seperation to wisdom. Were I a pastor I would not officiate gay weddings, because the Bible tells me not to, hate doesn't come into it. Gays can get married elsewhere.

Hate appears to come into it fairly often unfortunately, although I entirely accept that one can come to the same effective conclusion without hate.

Want to close down places of worship because they don't fit your world view, that's hate right there. Hate involves an action to be actionable, if a place of worship doesn't want to proliferate gay marriage so be it. It it riles up members to attack gays with sticks, then you have a case.

I have zero objection to places which don't fit my world view. I've been to quite a number of religious services in my time and had/have a number of religious friends entirely without objection to their beliefs or how they go about things. I have an objection to places which espouse hatred and discrimination against people. On a separate note, I have a significant issue with this being done on little to no evidence. This would be regardless of the source, religious, scientific, cultural, etc.

They provide a service first to their deity, the to whoever will follow the deity.

And this makes them less of a business?

But a church is not like a car dealership, a car dealership doesn't have a belief system, for an analogy its more like a political party.

Apparently businesses can have beliefs, certainly if the whole Hobby Lobby thing is anything to go by

Although one could say that if a business cannot have a belief system, then it is the ideals of the people who run the business that are being espoused, which would be an interesting angle to look at churches and the priests who refuse to perform certain services because of their personal beliefs.

The Labour party is not 'discriminating' if it doesn't choose David Cameron as its party leader. None would accept that as discrimination, but you are forcing something very similar on religions.

However, the service provided by the Labour party is not to have DC as its leader. The service of the Labour party (nominally) is to provide a political voice to its members/supporters. DC could certainly represent the Labour party and provide this service as could any other qualified individual, regardless of their (political) beliefs.

As pointed out mixed race couples wouldn't want to attend such a church.

And might that have something to do with all the hatred and discrimination by that church/priest?

That would be wrong.

Care to expand on that?

What is hilarious about the comment is that it is restricted to 'churches'.
Nobody even tries to think about imposing that level of 'equality' on a mosque or synagogue. In fact you could find several equal opportunity related reasons not to interfere.

When "other" religions make up a significant proportion of Western society and the governments of those societies then I am sure you will see a push to equalise those religious groups. However, since in the US, "Christianity" makes up an overwhelming majority of the population and an even more overwhelming proportion of its government, it is entirely reasonable to focus on Christianity. Not that there are not groups and individuals who are in fact dedicated to doing just that. Perhaps you don't hear about them for the same reason that people tend to concentrate on Christianity - there is one hell of a lot more contact in the West with Christianity than any other group.

Atheists are certainly enabled to hold personal beliefs, so can polirtcal organisations, different ethnicities and most religious groups seen as attached to those ethnicites. You can also have politicicise LCBT groups.

Not entirely sure what you are talking about here.

But not Christians, curious that.

An excellent attempt to dodge there.

So your solution is ban religious marriage.

Erm... no? Perhaps go back and read that section again.

As agents of the state, religious persons officiating at a marriage should have to follow state and federal laws against discriminating when it comes to offering their services. Those who wish to discriminate should therefore not be able to act as an agent of the state and so should not be able to conduct marriages (where marriage is defined as a legally binding contract between two people). That person should be entirely free to go off and conduct entirely religious ceremonies (for ease of reference, referred to as "Religious Unions"), but the people being united would then be required to go to someone licensed by the state to get married (ie have the legal ceremony of marriage conducted and the appropriate paperwork filed).

Of course, a person could also have an entirely non-religious marriage carried out by a religious person acting as an agent of the state (at their request), or by any other authorised state official (such as a judge or other secular person who is licences to conduct marriages).

Someone wanting a religious marriage is again entirely free to go to a religious authority who remains a state approved agent of the state and have a religious ceremony with legal standing - as currently is the case in most instances.

Hold on, after your tirade against 'discrimination' you now say that 'discrimination' is legally acceptable so long as its taxed and has no ability to officiate civic ceremony.
Please make up your mind, at face value your comments make no sense.

Discrimination is discrimination. The point being that there are forms of discrimination which are currently protected for certain groups and more strongly policed in other groups. A group which accepts state funding and/or tax breaks should be held to the same requirements to conform to the law as any other group which receives state funding or tax breaks; this would mean that they could not discriminate based on gender, sexuality, etc... Currently religious groups enjoy the funding/tax breaks but a protection from being required not to discriminate against people as do all other businesses otherwise in the same position.

As an entirely private entity, Churches would join other groups (such as private member clubs?) which have a limited protection under the law for carrying out certain types of discrimination (such as female/male only gyms), but would not be able to discriminate at will.

Although if you want to take an entirely black and white point of view...

Actually its fairly clear from an external point of view, reading between the lines you are perfectly happy so long as the 'church' is bashed.

Nope, not the case at all. It would be my ideal that any institution, secular or religious, be held to the same standards when it comes to descrimination.

On the tax issue some religious institutions can make money, but the vast majority do not because religion as a whole is not profit minded and often contrary to aquiring such. Yet the tax exempt status has to be blanket legislation in order to be fair.

And taxation is able to be offset against loss/costs. A church which made no money would pay no tax. A church set up as a charitable institution would follow the same tax codes (and have the same requirements for charitable activities) as any other charity.

**Frazzled**

I have zero objection to places which don't fit my world view. I've been to quite a number of religious services in my time and had/have a number of religious friends entirely without objection to their beliefs or how they go about things. I have an objection to places which espouse hatred and discrimination against people. On a separate note, I have a significant issue with this being done on little to no evidence. This would be regardless of the source, religious, scientific, cultural, etc.

So to be clear, again would shut down religions that disagree with you? What about their extended entities: for example Catholic Charities?

**Medium of Death**

reds8n wrote:
A lot of reasonable stuff

Thanks for that explanation.

My main reason for posting was really to try and put across the idea that being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make you a bigot and that they're reasonable opinions that conservative Christians have when put into the context of their faith.

I may have failed to represent that argument coherently, but I'm sure others have managed to do so in a logical manner.

I might contest going too far back with the definition of marriage with regard to this mostly Christian vs Gay Rights issue and the formation of our Western societies. Surely it's a matter of context?

Words like bigot just get my goat a little, because they've been watered down and are just used to shut down debate. Every time I see somebody silenced by these words it makes me angry because nobody is explaining anything (I at least tried to!) and people leave with their opinions further entrenched.

The most vivid example was a homeless man on Question Time that said that immigrants were delaying his ability to get housing. He was subsequently boo'd out of the studio, decried as "Racist" as he went, when he was presented with a panel that could have (well theoretically at least, but it is Question Time) explained the broader issues to him. Although the broader issues aren't particularly relevant when you're sleeping rough. Perhaps something along the lines of "While immigrants may be taking up housing stock, it is the failure of current and previous Governments to adequately invest in public housing that has caused this shortage. Immigrants simply seek opportunity, as would anybody given the window to a better life, blaming them for a problem caused by politicians is attacking the symptom not the cause" or something along those lines. Instead the homeless man goes away bitter and further angry at everything. I mean you can see it in Britain with any issue of immigration being automatically being shut down with "Racism!" which has just led to simmering tensions beginning to boil over. It's pretty Orwellian behaviour.

I just think we should all attempt to check that kind of shut down bs when we can. While trying to avoid it ourselves, even if we sometimes indulge in it.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Are you reading your own sources? Because it sure doesn't look like you do to me.

Cuts out one of the quotes to "prove" a point.

**SilverMK2**

Orlanth wrote:
i am not saying that at all, and you can only strectch to the assumption because you desire to to fulfill an anti-religious hate fantasy.

So, what exactly are you saying? Or are you only saying I am saying what you think I am saying because of your desire to fulfill a religious persecution fantasy?

I mentioned orthodox Judaism. With some orthodox Jews, especially Hassids you need to have a Jewish geneology to be accepted at all, and marriage outside ther sect is not acceptable. This happens, its isnt 'discriminatiojn' and nobody complains. Also for reformed Judaism you don't even need a Jewish mother, you can convert.

As with most religious beliefs, a certain amount of cultural influence comes up in how that religion is practised. Certainly there are plenty of religious groups within a larger religion which are more or less tolerant of certain behaviours, which may or may not be specifically outlined in their core rule book.

So what you are saying is that Sikhism is a valid example that you can have religions being culturally separated in terms of marriage, therefore you will ignore it.

Nope, I am saying that the cultural development surrounding Sikhism is significantly different to that which surrounds Christianity. My familiarity of Sikhism and the surrounding culture is not high enough to be able to comment on it in any particular detail. For example the differentiation as to what is religiously enforced as a direct point of religious belief, rather than culturally enforced as an interpretation of religious belief (or an external cultural cue) is something that is beyond me when discussing Sikhism, while my familiarity with Christianity and general Western culture is such that I could partake in the equivalent discussion regards Christianity.

Actually we are talking about statute law, its not 'pretty silly' its pretty damn important to look at all the variables.

As far as I am aware, Sikhs are required, when in the West, to follow Western law, the same as any other religious group. As with reporting of discrimination in Christian institutions, it requires people to report. If culturally a religious group is very closed, it becomes more unlikely that someone tangentially related to that group will come into contact with it (ie a Christian couple moves from one church to another, and decides to get married, so comes into contact with the new Church group which may be different to the one they left behind in terms of tolerance of, say, interracial marriage), and reduces the likelihood of a member of the group itself contacting an outside authority.

Hence in any group, the culture which surrounds that group is important to consider, regardless of what the law of the land is.

Only in your own little head.

I thought that what goes on in your head beats reality every time?

Highly prevalent? That sort of discrimination was never highly prevalent in the UK or US in the post slavery era. And in fact in the slavery era church attendance was encouraged, not prohibited. Your pandering to your own petty hatreds, please stop.

You are suggesting that race is not a huge issue in certain parts of America even today? Clearly it is not I who is pandering to a world view which fits what I want to believe.

If you bothered to look at the facts you will find that blacks in the UK and African Americans are very heavily represented in the churches. It so prevalent that the black congregation choir is one of Americas cultural memes, as is the black pastor.

And if you bothered to look at the facts, you will find that in plenty of places Churches were started up for different racial groups by people of that racial group. Whilst integrated church communities certainly do exist, and have existed for a number of years in places, originally Churches in many areas were highly segregated (and in some areas remain so today).

I cannot account for every single hick extremist church, but those churches aren't really churches, and allowing that Christianity is the largest religion on the planet and in the US/Uk both, it will only be a tiny unrepresentational minority, and one inevitable in any very large cultural grouping of people.

No true church?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
So to be clear, again would shut down religions that disagree with you?

It would be extremely unlikely that an entire religion would be shut down. Individual churches/temples/etc maybe. Although I can think of a number of secular organisations which may well fall foul of such a policy.

What about their extended entities: for example Catholic Charities?

What about them? If they are breaking a law (proposed or actual), they are breaking a law (proposed or actual). The punishment for breaking said law is laid out and should be supplied where a court of law deems that a breech occurred, tempered by the severity of the breech.

You know, same as any other crime.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
reds8n wrote:
Oh indeed.

IN fact one would suggest the essence of society is -- to a degree -- restriction and compromise.

And of course laws can be and are changed, even if it takes a long time.

This is true as well.

Personally I don't think SCOTUS should have taken this case. Its being settled remarkably quickly in the states, with public opinion and consensus shifting. Make some overarching court case and you risk pulling an RvW and freezing the controversy in place for decades. if SCOTUS really wanted, a better idea would have been to sit for five year years and then find a case, as the matter would effectively be settled then.

I think this was the plan, but if I recall there was a ruling against same-sex marriage in one of the circuit courts. And don't circuit splits usually force the SCOTUS to make a decision?

**Frazzled**

I think this was the plan, but if I recall there was a ruling against same-sex marriage in one of the circuit courts. And don't circuit splits usually force the SCOTUS to make a decision?

Just as a point of edification, thats often why SCOTUS will hear a case, but they are not required to. They leave conflicting cases let stand all the time.

**hotsauceman1**

When I met a man that married a pony plushie, and had it legally recognized by his town, I realized marriage means jack now.