Gay Marriage. I am honestly confused

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Supposed Pagan religions still were religious, whether or not the religion itself recognised the woman as property or a person with rights is a different story, but it was still in all cultured defined by how their religion defined it!

Since mankind began to write!

goes back before the idea of pagan.

back before the idea of religion

Originally posted by mideast
Is marriage in any aspect meaning sexual relation ship ?

Marriage is more than this , it involves kids , breeding children and inheriting.

IMO , OP should change the tittle to gay relationship.

Or change the definition in every single mind.

No, now you're changing the definition of marriage to suit your argument.

By your logic, people who are unable to have children should be excluded from marriage too.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

 

What I am discussing IS the definition of marriage.

This is what the Websters dictionary says, you can't really argue with a dictionary:

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union

I don't see it mention the word church once and I am sure #3 could apply to gays.

Originally posted by Tramadolnights

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Tramadolnights

Originally posted by quietlearner

this us vs them mentality is not the way, especially when pro gays are asking for acceptance and understanding
most gay activist have to learn acceptance and understanding themselves first

You're asking Christians to stop their hypocrisy, which is a pointless task.

Fixed.

edit on 26-7-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

You make me physically sick. You and your perverted lifestyle can rot in hell.

Oh, the feeling is quite mutual

Thankfully I don't believe in the Christian construct of Hell. To believe in Hell you need to believe in Satan, and to believe in Satan you need to believe in an omnipotent magical sky God.

I'm far too intelligent for all that malarkey, even if I do say so myself.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Supposed Pagan religions still were religious, whether or not the religion itself recognised the woman as property or a person with rights is a different story, but it was still in all cultured defined by how their religion defined it!

Since mankind began to write!

WRONG. There was no religion in early marriage. Marriage was strictly a business arrangement, like buying and selling property - religion was NOT involved in the beginning. Religious organizations saw an opportunity to get in on this business, so they did.

I don't know how many times I can say this. Marriage has not always been a religious institution.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by krossfyter

 

Religions are the ones who defined marriage to begin with.

How can religion define marriage when marriage was here before religion? What you mean is, religion stole the concept of marriage and made up a bunch of rules.

Here's something that will really cook your noodle: ancient records show that gay marriage was totally acceptable in early Christianity.

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.

anthropologist.livejournal.com...

Oh, THANK YOU!

I've been looking for this for ages, and I finally have it

People can now expect this link to appear in any and all discussions I find on ATS debating the bigotry of the Christian crazies.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Here's something that will really cook your noodle: ancient records show that gay marriage was totally acceptable in early Christianity.

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.

anthropologist.livejournal.com...

Oh, THANK YOU!

I've been looking for this for ages, and I finally have it

People can now expect this link to appear in any and all discussions I find on ATS debating the bigotry of the Christian crazies.

You are welcome.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Religion existed LONG before Christianity. We have record of religion since man started to write! Early Christians were Jews first, and they did not have homosexual marriage.

I can't help but notice that you never post sources. Those on the "other side" of this issue have posted many, but you continue to disagree, and make statements as facts, without anything to back them up.

And it doesn't matter to me which came first. TODAY is when we live and TODAY, in the US and many countries, marriage is a state or governmental contract, with the option for religious involvement. It carries many benefits at the state and federal level. According to the 14th amendment, no state shall make or enforce laws that deny any US citizens equal protection under the law.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The ban on gay marriage directly violates the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. TODAY.

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Tramadolnights

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Originally posted by Tramadolnights

Originally posted by quietlearner

this us vs them mentality is not the way, especially when pro gays are asking for acceptance and understanding
most gay activist have to learn acceptance and understanding themselves first

You're asking Christians to stop their hypocrisy, which is a pointless task.

Fixed.

edit on 26-7-2012 by detachedindividual because: (no reason given)

You make me physically sick. You and your perverted lifestyle can rot in hell.

Oh, the feeling is quite mutual

Thankfully I don't believe in the Christian construct of Hell. To believe in Hell you need to believe in Satan, and to believe in Satan you need to believe in an omnipotent magical sky God.

I'm far too intelligent for all that malarkey, even if I do say so myself.

I was always under the assumption that you burn in hell, not rot. I learn something new every day. It's just plain rude and very narrow minded to condem someone to hell simply because they don't have the same views or beliefs as you. Just sayin, that WAS pretty harsh

reply to post by kaylaluv

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum

en.wikipedia.org...

this is historically according to anthropologists the definition of marriage. Religion also interprets it as such, also giving rules and regulations governing the institution.

Homosexual couples cannot have children, as same sex couples do not procreate.

We should all just go back to getting officially married by Jumping over the broom


Easier, Faster, Simpler.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
What I am discussing IS the definition of marriage.

There is no one definition of marriage. Each couple defines their marriage. My definition of marriage does not include anything about the gender of the participants OR about religion or God.

I'm sure your definition of marriage is different and that's OK with me. I am not a party in your contract. Why should I care? It's none of my business.

Why do you care so much about the contract other people make with their state? It's really not your business.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


It is still a religious institution, that you are trying to remove the religion from.

I oppose that, I do not oppose equality for all man.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Homosexual couples cannot have children, as same sex couples do not procreate.

My husband and I can not have children. Are you saying we are not married?

Oh how very judgmental of you. Are you God now?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Then you have removed religion from a religious institution, you have walked into my religion and told me you want the rules changed.

Take the marriage out of the state, keep the state out of religious institutions. But dont change what marriage is and always has been.

reply to post by billy197300

you can't really argue with a dictionary:

Well actually you can.

Language and words continuously change and develop, as does society itself.

A perfect example is the very word GAY.
If you had called someone gay a hundred years or so ago it would have had a completely different meaning than what it has today.

As far as I can see it's totally irrelevant if marriage was or was not a specifically religious institution, it's what matter's now that is important.
Personally I can not see any reasonable explanation why homosexuals can not enter into a marriage, heterosexual Atheists are allowed to, so where's the difference?

Far too many people in this world seek to impose their own morals and values on other's.

If it doesn't interfere in anyone else's life just where is the problem?

If there is a 'God', and if this omnipotent, omniescent being is so against gay marriages then he will act as he see's fit come his Judgement Day, who are we to judge anyone?

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
Homosexual couples cannot have children, as same sex couples do not procreate.

My lesbian friends have a child. Using artificial insemination. He's her biological child. He's about 21 years old now. Plenty of gay couples have children. Their reproductive organs work just fine. Many straight couples need a little outside help to have a baby, too, sometimes. And I can't have children at all. Having children is not a requirement for marriage. They didn't even ask if we had plans to breed. And what about older couples getting married? Are you suggesting that women over forty not be permitted to marry?

reply to post by OneisOne


I would give birth in another country before I would see my children listed as bastards on their birth certificate which is a legal document.

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[

Edmund Leach criticized Gough's definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to the woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum

en.wikipedia.org...

this is historically according to anthropologists the definition of marriage. Religion also interprets it as such, also giving rules and regulations governing the institution.

Homosexual couples cannot have children, as same sex couples do not procreate.

You answered your own question with your link. Did you not actually READ that before you posted it? This is how it defines marriage:
Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. In terms of legal recognition, most sovereign states and other jurisdictions limit marriage to two persons of opposite sex or gender in the gender binary, and some of these allow polygynous marriage. In the 21st century, several countries and some other jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity.

I don't see the word church in that either.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Originally posted by OpinionatedB
It is still a religious institution, that you are trying to remove the religion from.

I am not trying to remove religion from your marriage! I already told you that I support religious freedom 100%. Go ahead and get married in the eyes of God. Have at it!

But the FACT is that people have the CHOICE to have religion in their marriage or not. You can argue this till the cows come home, but it still won't be true.