Condemn gay marriage, or just gay rape?

quote:

---

the color of a persons skin wasnt an issue until the slave trade

---

So what? It was an issue in this country until the SCOTUS ended it, for reasons that are exactly parallel the issue of gay marriage. It's not clutching at straws, it's called arguing by analogy from precedent.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

it does so in every nation on earth today

---

My emphasis.

quote:

---

keep it in context please.

---

You're going to have to explain to me how was anglagard said wasn't in exactly the same context as what you said.Is it really that difficult for you to admit that you were wrong?Edited by subbie, : Tyop

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

but it wasnt a precedentlook back thru history and you'll see that people were not divided by the color of their skin but by the value of their fortunesit wasnt until the slave trade of recent times that division was due to the color of the skin

not at all, im im wrong im wrongbut the discussion was about the traditional male/female marriage which has been an institution since ancient timeshe said that there are plenty of nations where it does not represent male/female relationships and proceeded to mention countries that have legalised gay marriagewere we not talking about the original institution of marriage as being a male/female one ?

It in fact is precedent because it's an issue that the SCOTUS ruled on in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. What happened in history and when racism became institutionalized is irrelevant. (And this is even assuming the truth of what you say, something I doubt very much.) SCOTUS declared interracial marriage unconstitutional as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under arguments that are identical in rationale to the arguments against gay marriage. You need to actually read the Loving decision to understand how and why.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You said:

quote:

---

it does so in every nation on earth today

---

My emphasisWhether we were talking about traditional marriage in ancient times, the original institution of marriage, or how fun puppy dogs are to play with, your statement is factually wrong. Context has nothing to do with it.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I never said "there are plenty of nations where it does not represent male/female relationships" as it is obvious that traditional marriages are also recognized. Also I simply mentioned the half-dozen nations where gay marriage is recognized is in contradiction to your statement that marriage was recognized as male and female only in all nations today.Don't misrepresent my posts or we are going to get off to a bad start.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Ha!
i mentioned that the traditional 'marriage' and its designation has always been an institution of male/female relationshipsIs that wrong? incorrect?? contrary in anyway to what the institution of marriage has always been??? you mention something that was completely out of context because these gay marriages are only recent advancements. They have not been a part of the traditional institution of marriage hence why this thread is even being discussedit was completely out of context

So you want another detractor. OK, I will give you what you seem to so earnestly desire. Yes, see History of Same Sex Unions. More 'facts' that are easy to find.Just for one example out of many:

quote:

---

The fact that marriage occurred between two men among the Romans is proved by a law in the Theodosian Code from the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans which was passed on December 16, 342.

---

Tell that to Constantius and Constans.The cry of 'context' is not an excuse for blatant falsehoods.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

the blatant falsehoods come into play when you take things out of context, which you've managed to do again!please note wikipedias use of the word 'UNION' from the link you posted. World's first modern legally recognized same-sex unions are called "registered partnerships" and its all come about in the last few decades.If as you say, marriage is not soley for the institution of male/female relations, why is it such a legal issue? and where is the history of male/male marriages??

Peg, you wrote it down for all to see.It is time to say, "Oh, I was wrong." It is NOT true that ALL nations TODAY only have male- female marriage. Some nations are more just and Christian than others. I happen to live in one of them. The USA and Australia will catch up to us within a decade or two (Australia long before the USA I'm sure, then you can be a nation that operates on more Christian principles of love and forgiveness too. And set a good example for the USA like we do.)We are all (me for sure) wrong sometimes. It isn't so bad to simple admit it.Carrying on to pretend that you didn't say what you wrote makes you look like a liar or stupid.

My apologies, i see this is where i went wrong
"marriage by definition relates to male/female relationships it did so in the bible, and it does so in every nation on earth today"sure, i'll conceed that point... there are a few nations who now recognise same sex marriage which has happened of latethe point remains though (what i was originally trying to say) that the traditional marriage is an institution of the male/female relationshipArticle 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."perhaps when all nations eventually accept same sex marriage, they will need to change article 16.

Roman history, as I posted in Message 24.Now if you are announcing to us all that you are the ultimate decider on the definition of marriage for all people and for all time, I guess you are allowed to proclaim victory.I know already without hitting my tremendous resources in articles and books I have available at my fingertips that there is also a history of homosexual marriage in the Pacific Islands.But of course if marriage is defined as only allowed among Christian couples with the sanction of both church and state prior to 20 years ago, then I guess you may have a case.Unfortunately for your argument, I have a broader definition of the ritual of marriage, history, the world, and the definition of what constitutes a human being.Edited by anglagard, : add the world

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

for arguments sake, im going to conceed to your greater wisdom in this areai'll stick with my simple solution that if they want to marry, let them...and hopefully they find a nice gay name for their unions so we can differentiate between hetrosexual marriage and homosexual marriage

I think it is safe to say that in almost every culture throughout history (until recently), recognition of same-sex unions has been extremely rare. Specifically, in Israel 2000+ years ago, almost everyone would have had a hard time wrapping their head around how that was even possible. It is possible to say with certainty that there were absolutely no notable efforts to create legal structures for same sex unions.For people who condemn homosexuality on religious grounds, it is a secondary question whether or not there is historical precedent for gay marriage/unions. Or how marriage has been traditionally defined. At the core of the matter, what really sells the case is the argument that the Bible classifies any homosexual behavior as sinful.In ancient times, when gay marriage was essentially non-issue, it would have made no sense for the Bible to support or condemn it, or even to mention it. So it doesn't. Similar to how the Bible does not take a stance on stem cell research, because that issue did not exist when it was written, and any attempts to discuss it would have just confused people.But although the Bible does not take a stance on homosexual relationships, it does take a stance on homosexual behavior, and the question is which ones. If the message is that all homosexual behavior is sinful, then the implications for homosexual relationships can easily be worked out. On the other hand, if only certain categories of homosexual acts are considered sinful, such as temple rites and rape, then it leaves the door open to acceptance of gay marriage.To be honest, I don't know enough about Greek, Hebrew, ancient Jewish culture, or textual analysis to get a firm grasp on the answer, although I'm leaning towards thinking that the more permissive explanation is correct. I'm guessing, though, that some of you are much more studied on this issue than I am. What do you think -- does the Bible condemn all homosexual acts, or just a nasty subset of them?