Revenge of the Return of *Homosexuals are Gay* Reloaded

Would you care to "PPOR?" (One good turn deserves another, right? )

Certainly. Unlike your previous refusal to PPOR, I am up to the task.

The oldest manuscripts/texts/scrolls/tablets/etc., that I am aware of, referencing marriage are of a religious or mythological nature, and those present a different incipient officiation of marriage under the auspices of a divine bestowal...allegedly as inferred from those materials from the very beginning of history. If you've some other source, by all means present it, I'd like very much to investigate it.

Certainly. For starters, read the following:
-Levinson, D. (ed.), Encyclopedia of marriage and the family (New York-London, 1995), 2 vol.
-Reynolds, Philip Lyndon, Marriage in the Western church: the christianization of marriage during the patristic and early medieval periods (Leiden, 1994).
-Shorter, E., The making of the modern family (New York, 1975).
-Anderson, Michael, Approaches to the history of the Western family, 1500-1914 (Cambridge, 1995, orig. publ.: London, 1980).
-Cartlidge, Neil, Medieval marriage: literary approaches, 1100-1300 (Cambridge, 1997).

While you're waiting for those books, here are some weblinks:

History of Marriage
"There appeared to be many marriages taking place without witness or ceremony in the 1500's. The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses. Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era."

Women and Marriage in Ancient Rome
"The individualistic conception of matrimony and of the family attained by our civilization was alien to the Roman mind, which conceived of these from an essentially political and social point of view. The purpose of marriage was, so to speak, exterior to the pair. As untouched by any spark of the metaphysical spirit as he was unyielding--at least in action--to every suggestion of the philosophic; preoccupied only in enlarging and consolidating the state of which he was master, the Roman aristocrat never regarded matrimony and the family, just as he never regarded religion and law, as other than instruments for political domination, as means for increasing and establishing the power of every great family, and by family affiliations to strengthen the association of the aristocracy, already bound together by political interest."

Kinship Terminology of the Middle Ages
"A legal marriage was one where a series of specific rites were performed and payments were exchanged between kindreds. The usual legal series was: a betrothal agreement between families; betrothal feast; marriage within a specified time;marriage before witnesses; and an exchange of dower, dowry, and morningafter gift. (Frank 474-484)"

That should be good enough to get you started. There is a wealth of information out there. If your Sociology and anthropology teachers did not give you this information, you should probably ask for your tuition check back. A cursory study of pre-christian human history yields a plethora on the subject, especially in the Mediterranean region.

 

Cheveyo,


That was all entirely beside the point of my post to you, with the exception of your retraction. Certainly, you didn't expect me to not notice, did you?


(For the record, I have no problem with the extension of an apology, as given yesterday in the atheism thread, or with a retraction if it is due. It simply was not due. Furthermore, I asked you specifically what you felt should be retracted, and you did not present such specifics.)


Conjecture is not fact. Please note this for future reference.

The discussion of matrimonial customs endemic to ancient Rome, for example, do not address the origination of matrimony but merely presents some isolated cultural variants upon an already existent institution.


Please focus.

 

Marriage in the United States is a civil union.

I'm aware. And I'd appreciate it if you were a little less condescending. My point is that what everyone is getting hung up on (or at least is CLAIMING to be getting hung up on) is the word MARRIAGE. I hear lots of people saying "I'm fine with gay civil unions, but they can't call it marriage," and I see the other side saying "We want the term marriage because we want equality, at least in the eyes of the government."

As of right now, the US gov't. calls a civil union between a man and a woman "marriage". And regardless of the history, the word "marriage" has a religious/spiritual connotation for a large number of Americans.

If the government simply strikes the word "marriage" from its laws, then in the eyes of the government a heterosexual civil union is the exact same thing as a homosexual civil union, except for the sexes of the participants. This will provide the equality sought by the "gay" side.

And by refusing to redefine "marriage" to include homosexual unions (indeed refusing to codify what constitutes marriage period), the government will appease the "traditional" side.

"Marriage" will then become a purely religious/spiritual term, to be defined based on the beliefs of individuals and various ways, much in the way the decision of what is and isn't "sacrament" can only really be defined based on one's beliefs.


I don't disagree with you here about marriage being more than just a religious ceremony. But I think that since this particular term is so hotly contested, the government should just give the term over to the religious types.


Let the traditionalists keep their belief that marriage should only be man-woman. And allow the rest of us call marriage what we will.

EDIT: sorry if I seem to repeat myself. I'm just trying to better articulate my stance, to avoid confusion.

 

Wow, from your quick response, I take it you are a speed reader to have been able to read through the aforementioned books and have time left to critique them. That is truly impressive.

The discussion of matrimonial customs endemic to ancient Rome, for example, do not address the origination of matrimony but merely presents some isolated cultural variants upon an already existent institution.

I suppose you missed the history lessen that shows the civilization that engaged in these "variants of an already existent institution" predates Christianity by a bit. Marriage is has been documented to have occured in cultures throughout the world without religious indocterinization. It was a way of gathering and/or accumulating wealth. It was a way of recognizing which woman could be had and which was available to be taken (as dehumanizing as that was). They didn't teach you any of this in your sociology classes?

 

Cheveyo,

Please return to what I wrote above pertaining to "conjecture."

Your vehicle seems uncritically stuck in the mud.


EDIT:

Firstly, I didn't bring "Christianity" into the origination of marriage, you have. Being that "Christianity" proper began approximately 2,000 years ago, I certainly know full well better.

Secondly, why don't you inform us which of these early cultures had no religious convictions of any sort?

To my knowledge the earliest recorded shards of history depict cultures with monotheistic and/or polytheistic belief systems.

Now, if you are aware of some elaborate cave drawing which inarguably settles the issue,...please inform us as to what Fred and Wilma had to say.

It seems you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

 

To my knowledge the earliest recorded shards of history depict cultures with monotheistic and/or polytheistic belief systems.

This is where you misconstrue my point. I was very particular in my wording. As such, you'll note that at no time did I suggest that any culture I related was "without religion". What I did show is that the concept of marriage was not a religious one until much later.

Again, I urge you to read the above books for more detail.


And Kieron, I'm truly sorry if I came across as condescending. That was not my intention.

 

WOW, did you get pillow cases with that blanket statement, hope not because it is absoilutely ridiculous! Unless of course you have personally gone to each and every gay couple and asked them their opinion, and then had them analyzied by a team of psychologist who would come to that conclusion.

Yes, I know it's genralizing, but, do you think any blacks were opposed to black rights in the 60's? No. So why would gays be opposed ot gay rights. I'm not saying that all gays STAND UP for gays rights, I'm saying they all believe in gay rights.

Interesting, I was a slave owner and didnt even know it, unless the WE you are talking about is discriminating against the ME writing this post and doesnt include me. The only way your arguemnt would be valid would be if they did not allow gay slaves and the gay community complained that it was discrimination.


The WE I was refering too was people in general, and you know that. You're simply trying to mindlessly insult me becuase you know I'm right.

stupid, good choice of word here

What kind of insult is that? What, is every word I use supposed to be an SAT word. Do you want me to use "metally inferior" instead of stupid?

Do you even have the slightest inkling of what Brown v the Board of Education was about or entailed?

Yes, I do, and nobody ever voted whether we should desegregate the schools (except the supreme court). The government made them.

The delusions begin...

EOR. Elaborate or retract.

Sorry, for a minute I thought I was reading the thread on communism.

Sorry, for a minute I thought you knew what communism and democracy was. Forcing people to do the right thing isn't communist. I sure do hope you what democracies are. Democracies, in case you didn't know, limit people from doing things that hurt other people, including sexuality discrimination.

 

I think this thread has gone a little off topic in the last few pages! Let's bring it back, 'kay?

The question should not be "Why should homosexuals marry?" but " Why shouldn't homosexuals marry?"

The most common response is that it's not the classical family. But neither are single-parent homes, homes including an uncle or aunt or grandparent, or just a kid and a grandparent/aunt/uncle. There are many different types of families now, and they're not uncommon, but nobody is attacking any of those kind of families. Raising kids doesn't depend on the number or gender or age of their parent-figures/guardians, but on who they are, on what they are like, which is different for every person. But children aren't the main reason for marriage for everyone, or even a reason for some couples, if they even want to or can have children in the first place! Many couples don't even want kids, or they can't. Of course, if a couple has kids then that would be a top priority of the marriage. But many heterosexual couples don't have kids, but nobody is attacking them. Having and raising children isn't a recquired part of marriage. The type of family your neighbors have can not harm you in any way. All it does it give people more options to choose from, nobody is forcing you to do anything, it's the opposite, they're giving you more choices if they legalize homosexual marriage. You can still have a "classical family" if you choose to.
Others at this point say that according to their religion, children are a recquirement of marriage, or homosexuality is a sin (and even those things can be disputed). Well guess what, not everyone in your religion agrees with the same beliefs, not everyone is even in your religion, and religion is supposed to have no influence over the government's laws or vice-versa. What if someone is in a religion where homosexual marriage is accepted equally with heterosexual marriage? The government should be able to hand out marriage certificates to any consenting couple, regardless of their sex. Whether their religion recoginizes their union or not is something entirely different, which the government should have no say in anyways.
People, especially in America, should have the right to choose their own lifestyle, for the governemnt to legally recognize whatever type of family you choose to form. Some say it should be decided by a majority vote of the people or congress of the state/country. But the majority vote is not always the best thing. The government is not only around to follow the will of the people and protect the people form outsiders, but also defend the freedoms and rights of the people from themselves. A minority of the population should not be treated differently just because they are the minority, it is the government's job to protect minorities from the majority.

Do some of you against homosexual marriage understand better now?

 

I've taken sociology classes, civics classes, anthropology courses, history, and yet omitted from instruction was your version of the origination of marriage. Most especially as an historical fact.



And yet despite your extensive studies you claim this country was founded by born again christians. And both you and Bruno get riled up when I or anyone suggest that homosexuality is the real issue and not gay marriage, so maybe you werent paying too much attention in your sociology and anthropology classes. Homosexuality and certain individuals aversion to it is ALL this topic is about. I love how so called christians get all worked up over this when chances are if Christ entered the picture today he would absolutely preach tolerance and acceptance towards everyone, including homosexuals. Are there even any real christians out there anymore? You know the ones that actually follow the wisdom of the beatitudes, which were considered extremely radical and progressive when Christ taught them ?

 

PLus, I bet Christ would NOT be down with corporate America, or pretty much the materialsim of american culture.

 

You mean to tell me you guys can't find one of the thousand or so religious threads to spread your Biblical Revisionisms?

 

Hello? Am I invisible?

 

Thats kinda the whole point Rod. It seems for the most part that progressives and secularists are really the only people who comprehend Jesus and his message to mankind, even if they dont title themselves " christians ". The revisionists seem to reside solely in a community of people who call themselves christians. You know as well as I that if Christ were alive in todays world he would be just as ridiculed, marginilized, and eventually incarcerated and/or killed with the full support of mainstream religious entities as he was 2000 years ago. Its extremely ironic. Do you really think Jesus would side on issues that are brought up by Robertson or Faldwell? He would most likely denounce them as false prohphets. Nobody in the christian right could be accurately described as a christian, especially when the focus of their sermons are damning homosexuality or supporting a President to go to war simply because he calls himself a christian and purports to represent the christian rights interests. What ever happened to blessed be the meek and poor? Thats certainly not the case in America. The real christians in this country and around the world really need to unite, now more then ever, and walk the walk of Jesus.

 

I dunno,sev. Jesus was the guy who called himself the great devider. He came to set father against son and brother against brother. He also said that for a man to lay with another man as he would his wife is an "abomination" to the Father. The links can be found in this very thread.

There were rationalisations as to what He meant or the accuracy of the translations. But that is what the Bible says.

 

Your right - it most definetly could be interpreted that way. The beatitiudes, however, are not open for interpretation. They speak for pacifism, generosity, reverance to ones elders and god. I mean theres actually parables in the bible where the so called " religious " man shirks his humanity and the " pagan " is selfless and generous. To people in this day and age that call themselves christians these lessons are totally ignored.

 

To people in this day and age that call themselves christians these lessons are totally ignored.

Remember, Jesus pretty much stayed out of politics unless it corrupted His church. So ask youself, would He approve of His church recognising gay marriage?

The answer's pretty clear, IMO.

 

Kieron, I am totally down with what you are gettign at, which is what I proposed a few pages back but of course, who listens to the homophobe.

All Marriages are a Civil Union.
BUT Not all Civil Unions are Marriage.

Father, your not invisible, your just making the whole debate too wide, we are hung up on a very specific point.

Yes, I know it's genralizing, but, do you think any blacks were opposed to black rights in the 60's? No. So why would gays be opposed ot gay rights. I'm not saying that all gays STAND UP for gays rights, I'm saying they all believe in gay rights.

If the gays were enslaved then you might have a point, other wise its apples and toothbrushes!

The WE I was refering too was people in general, and you know that. You're simply trying to mindlessly insult me becuase you know I'm right.

So people in general keep slaves. That is what you are saying. I htink ther eare a few who would claim that they are not slave owners, or even know anyone who is a slave owner. And I am the one bing mindless?

stupid, good choice of word here
What kind of insult is that? What, is every word I use supposed to be an SAT word. Do you want me to use "metally inferior" instead of stupid?

It is the insult that refers to the very text you posted, pretty obvious even for the mentally inferior.

The delusions begin...
EOR. Elaborate or retract.

Elaborate: delusion, have some fantastic idea that is completely baseless.

Sorry, for a minute I thought you knew what communism and democracy was. Forcing people to do the right thing isn't communist. I sure do hope you what democracies are. Democracies, in case you didn't know, limit people from doing things that hurt other people, including sexuality discrimination.

No but there have been many in that thread who have no idea what they are talking about and, well, that seems to be the case here as well. Call it what you want but Forcing people to do the right thing means using some sort of moral baseline. If you are not goign to let society dictate that baseline and leave it to the government to invent it on their own, your in for quite a surprise as to what exactly is "right"

 

Amen. I couldn't have said it better myself. Fianlly, I've meet a real Christian. It's been a while! Fundementalist Christians just don't seem to be able to ponder anywhere near what you can.

 

If Christ lived today, he would preach actual tolerance... What tolerance was meant to be, not "everything is right, nothing is wrong, its their choice" but instead "love everyone and be kind to everyone, but if they are sinning, let them know"

 

If the gays were enslaved then you might have a point, other wise its apples and toothbrushes!

What is it with you and enslaving gays!! Gays don't need to be enslaved to be discriminated against. In fact, you're not even adressing my point, my point is that there weren't many black people in the 60s who were against black rights, so why would there be gays today that don't want gay rights? Your post doesn't even come anywhere close to adressing my point!!

So people in general keep slaves. That is what you are saying. I htink ther eare a few who would claim that they are not slave owners, or even know anyone who is a slave owner. And I am the one bing mindless?

Wow, you're going to make me spell it out. I WAS TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE IN HISTORY!! obviously. I didn't say people nowadays own slaves but I was saying that people in the past have done horrible things for longs periods of time, but that doesn't mean it should be kept that way.

It is the insult that refers to the very text you posted, pretty obvious even for the mentally inferior.

No kidding, but there is still nothing wrong with using the word stupid. It's not like you have a higher vocabulary.

Elaborate: delusion, have some fantastic idea that is completely baseless.

Basless huh. You think the analogy comparing the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement is baseless. Let's see, in the 60s, blacks had no rights and the schools were segregated, and people didn't want change, they wanted to keep the schools just like they were, because they hadn't been around black people, when they did, they let go of their prejeduce. People now don't want gay rights, becuase they haven't been around gays, and they don't want change, people who are arond gays ussualy come around, unless the suffer form dickitidis. *cough, cough* Dick Cheny *cough, cough* One of the things that allowed me to not hate is to be around some of my family members who are gay. You learn they are no different from any body else, nonsuperficially, that is. People learned that black people have feeling just like everybody else, and deserve to be treated like everybody else, and the same applies to gays.

Baseless? Hardly.

No but there have been many in that thread who have no idea what they are talking about and, well, that seems to be the case here as well. Call it what you want but Forcing people to do the right thing means using some sort of moral baseline. If you are not goign to let society dictate that baseline and leave it to the government to invent it on their own, your in for quite a surprise as to what exactly is "right"

Once again, society didn't want blacks to have rights either. And you think they can be trusted to define our morals? With your idea of how laws should be made, we'd still have segregated schools.

 

Cheveyo,

"This is where you misconstrue my point. I was very particular in my wording. As such, you'll note that at no time did I suggest that any culture I related was "without religion". What I did show is that the concept of marriage was not a religious one until much later."

This is nonsensical.

You've "shown" primarily an obstinacy toward humbly accepting correction.

This dialogue is protracted beyond the single necessary and hypothetically short post from you, the content of which might have stood in pure simplicity: "I stand corrected."




"What I did show is that the concept of marriage was not a religious one until much later."

Uh hmm, precisely how did you "show" that to be the case factually?

This extemporizing you are attempting to foist is ludicrous, something I suspect you secretly know. You would attempt to tell us in your careful wording that any culture you "related" to us had "religion"...but that it(religion) played no part in marriage until "much later."

And, you know this to be factually accurate, precisely how?

Which extant tablet or stele was this gleaned from?
Or, perhaps it was the sublime conjecture of a 20th or 21st century sociologist or anthropologist pertaining to a prehistoric scenario?

 

Let's not make this personal.

 

I love gays. Just not the things they do. I think it is really sad, but to ACT on those desires is a CHOICE. Yes, I know it is shocking, but we do have choice in our actions. I do not believe that they are born that way, but I do acknowledge that those feelings may not be wanted. I have tons of unwanted feelings, and when I act on those that I know are wrong, I have done something wrong. Just because I was tempted doesn't mean I didn't have a choice to act or not. I feel that you can get to heaven if you are gay, as long as you do no practice. While many might call this "homophobia" I do not think so because I "condemn" adulters and fornicators equally.

I understand what a hard thing it is to no give in to those feelings, I admit I have a hard time with my own, but that doesn't mean I think we should give aproval to thier actions. That said, just because someone is living with someone other than their wife (man or woman) doesn't mean that they should not be accorded freedom, it just means that the family is something important, and for me one of the most important things in the world, and that these "new age" "lifestyles" will destroy families, communities, and nations. I have seen what happens to a country where almost nobody gets married, and it isn't pretty.

Marriage is more than just a piece of paper, and if it was I guess it wouldn't matter if you handed them out like candy in a parade to every kid with a hand out.

 

Esp, be careful according to shredder, we dont know what is in our best interest, best let the government decide for us. Of course they know better than anyone what we should do. Not like they are elected officials and responsible to represent the people that put them in office.

I am not gonna even bother with him anymore.

 

An insult is always the best way to continue a debate in a mature, adult way, isn't it Bruno?