Supreme Court Gay Rights Rulings: A Slippery Downhill Slope Toward What's Next?

Aaaand more:

Office for Same-Sex Union [Akolouthia eis adelphopoiesin]
from John Boswell, Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, (NewYork: Villard, 1994)
i.

The priest shall place the holy Gospel on the Gospel stand

and they that are to be joined together place their right

hands on it, holding lighted candles in their left hands.

Then shall the priest cense them and say the following:



ii.

In peace we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For heavenly peace, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For the peace of the entire world, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

For this holy place, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That these thy servants, N. and N., be

sanctified with thy spiritual benediction, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That their love [agape] abide without offense or scandal

all the days of their lives, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That they be granted all things needed for salvation and

godly enjoyment of life everlasting, we beseech Thee, O Lord.

That the Lord God grant unto them unashamed faithfulness

[pistis] and sincere love [agape anhypokritos], we beseech Thee, O Lord....

Have mercy on us, O God.

"Lord, have mercy" shall be said three times.



iii

The priest shall say:

Forasmuch as Thou, O Lord and Ruler, art merciful and

loving, who didst establish humankind after thine image and

likeness, who didst deem it meet that thy holy apostles

Philip and Bartholomew be united, bound one unto the other

not by nature but by faith and the spirit. As Thou didst

find thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus worthy to be united

together [adelphoi genesthai], bless also these thy

servants, N. and N., joined together not by the bond of

nature but by faith and in the mode of the spirit [ou

desmoumenous desmi physeis alla pisteis kai pneumatikos

tropi], granting unto them peace [eirene] and love [agape]

and oneness of mind. Cleanse from their hearts every stain

and impurity and vouchsafe unto them to love one other [to

agapan allelous] without hatred and without scandal all the

days of their lives, with the aid of the Mother of God and

all thy saints, forasmuch as all glory is thine.



iv.

Another Prayer for Same-Sex Union



O Lord Our God, who didst grant unto us all those things

necessary for salvation and didst bid us to love one another

and to forgive each other our failings, bless and

consecrate, kind Lord and lover of good, these thy servants

who love each other with a love of the spirit [tous

pneumatike agape heautous agapesantas] and have come into

this thy holy church to be blessed and consecrated. Grant

unto them unashamed fidelity [pistis] and sincere love

[agape anhypokritos], and as Thou didst vouchsafe unto thy

holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, bestow them

also on these, O Christ our God, affording to them all those

things needed for salvation and life eternal. For Thou art

the light and the truth and thine is the glory.



v.

Then shall they kiss the holy Gospel and the priest and one

another, and conclude.


This service is a rite of the Eastern Orthodox Church dating from very early times and assuming its present form between the fourth and ninth centuries AD. This service is translated from the Euchologion of Jacobus Goar, which was printed in 1647 and revised in 1730. A facsimile of the 1730 edition, published in Graz, Austria, in 1960, is the edition available in many theological libraries. With the rising influence of western ideas in recent centuries, this rite ceased to be practiced widely and was largely forgotten or ignored except in isolated areas, most notably Albania and other areas in the Balkans, where it flourished throughout the nineteenth century and up to at least 1935. Both men and women were united with this rite or similar ones.

Source

reply to post by LightOrange

Your voluntary ignorance is really beginning to blow my mind. Maybe if you were a big boy you could do a quick Google search all by yourself. But alas, here it is for you:

If I were to rely on "a quick google search" to form my view on this subject, I probably would have made the same grievous error you and so many others have made concerning this topic. The thoroughly discredited "historical" work you have sourced by John Boswell (who died of AIDs shortly after its penning) has no place in this discussion, and if you had been more careful in your own research you could have avoided this misstep.

I suspect that you latched on to the first thing you came across that seemed to fly in the face of my argument, and frankly I can't blame you. It is becoming more and more evident to me that this is not a topic where meaningful discussions can be had, but one that further entrenches those with opposing views irrespective of evidence and reason.

If I am wrong about your dogmatic approach, and you are honestly seeking for truth on this matter, I suggest you dig a little deeper.

P.S. I'll leave the googling to the "big boys", as I'm more interested in being a man of truth and integrity...

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

I do not need a quick nor intensive google search on the issue to know the truth for I and many of my friends are living it.

Quite simply;

*I like many of my both gay and lesbian friends live in a committed relationship. I've been in mine for 7 1/2 years, I know of people my age (40) whom have been with the same partner for 20 years now. We are not interested in breaking up families, kiddy fiddling, marrying animals or any other moral / criminal incursion. We are simply living our lives in the model of marriage.

*If there were ever a suggestion to change any of the laws surrounding pedophilia, bestiality etc etc everyone I know would unite with you in the straight community to fight it, because believe it or not, we gay people do have morals. Our morals are the same ones you have, because we got them from the straight homes we grew up in.

*By promoting marriage and monogamy in the gay community we will actually be doing the health services a favour. There are sometimes posts about the STI's and the gay community that are used as an attack. STI's are spread through promiscuous sex, nothing startling about that news. Therefore if we promote traditional values to the gay community and get monogamous relationships set as the standard to aspire to, like they are in the straight community, only good can come from it in terms of slowing the spread of nasty diseases down.

*Gay male couples tend to have higher disposable incomes than their straight counterparts. The obvious benefits to the economy do not need to be spelled out. Anyone in business making gay couples feel welcome is likely to reap economic benefits from it. I know we spend our money wisely, and we are loyal to the places that value our custom, likewise places that make us feel awkward or unwelcome miss out.

*I and my friends are not naive enough to imagine the whole world is going to start treating us like VIP's or long lost friends. We know that it's human nature to not like things for irrational reasons. I hate pumpkin and brussel sprouts and no-one will ever change my mind because it is set. However, I don't spend my life attacking fruit and vegetable shops for selling them, I just walk past those vegetables to go any buy what I want i.e. I just ignore the things I don't like and let them be because unless provoked by them i.e put on my dinner plate, they do not affect my life in any way. The same principle can be applied to those who do not like gay people. Unless you directly provoked by them in every day life, why worry about gay relationships?

reply to post by markosity1973

I do not need a quick nor intensive google search on the issue to know the truth for I and many of my friends are living it.

Your testimony is truly appreciated. I assure you, my intent is not to disparage you or others within the gay community. As a member of this family we call the human race, you are just as entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us.

That said, as inspirational as your opening statement may sound, I don't see how your personal experience speaks to the topic at hand...that of marriage and its implicit definition. Are you implying that truth is a subjective construct, an abstract in the eyes of the beholder, and therefore doesn't really have a bearing in reality?

The crazieness has already started my girlfriend called AAA yesterday and they asked her father's maden name what next.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
P.S. I'll leave the googling to the "big boys", as I'm more interested in being a man of truth and integrity...

edit on 5-7-2013 by Afewloosescrews because: (no reason given)

Oh. Aren't you the one who just started a thread about homosexual "slippery slopes"?

Sounds more like you're parroting brainless rhetoric from like-minded bigots.

You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your theories.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews

 

Your testimony is truly appreciated. I assure you, my intent is not to disparage you or others within the gay community. As a member of this family we call the human race, you are just as entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the rest of us.

Thankyou, it is nice to be recognised as a fellow human for once.

That said, as inspirational as your opening statement may sound, I don't see how your personal experience speaks to the topic at hand...that of marriage and its implicit definition. Are you implying that truth is a subjective construct, an abstract in the eyes of the beholder, and therefore doesn't really have a bearing in reality?

I am simply implying that the model of marriage i.e. two people committed to one another in monogamy for better for worse to death till we part is one that we in the gay community also follow. We are not looking to destroy that model, we are looking to take part in it properly i.e have proper recognition for it.

There is no agenda to bring down heterosexual values, our agenda is to bring gay values up to match. I spelled out some of the benefits for the wider community in doing so in my last post.

Originally posted by lifeisgreat
The crazieness has already started my girlfriend called AAA yesterday and they asked her father's maden name what next.

Obviously all families will shut down, people will start having sex with gophers, and we'll all start eating sea anenomes and worshipping Adam Lambert.

Dem slippery slopes.

reply to post by LightOrange

Oh. Aren't you the one who just started a thread about homosexual "slippery slopes"?

I am the one who started a thread about the inevitable downward spiral that begins by granting society the authority to arbitrarily change definitions of fundamental institutions. Guilty as charged.

Sounds more like you're parroting brainless rhetoric from like-minded bigots.

Hmmm. 'Cause from my perspective, and as I have just exposed, it is you (not I) who is haphazardly copying and pasting snippets from various dubious sources hoping that one will eventually stick. My thoughts are borrowed from my own head, and if I have formed my opinions wrongly, I would appreciate if you would so kindly show me where I went astray rather than throwing out tired ad hominem remarks as you have just done.

You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your theories.

My theories are fairly self-evident. Nevertheless, I am more than willing to provide answers and/or evidence for whatever it is you're confused about. All you have to do is ask.

reply to post by markosity1973

I am simply implying that the model of marriage i.e. two people committed to one another in monogamy for better for worse to death till we part is one that we in the gay community also follow. We are not looking to destroy that model, we are looking to take part in it properly i.e have proper recognition for it.

What you have just described is an example of only part of what the principal of marriage entails. Ultimately, by assuming the privilege to "take part in" what is called marriage, you are requiring a radical transformation of what marriage is in the first place (man/woman). Your intent may not be to directly "destroy" marriage as an institution, but to arbitrarily redefine it, and that is where the problem lies.

There is no agenda to bring down heterosexual values, our agenda is to bring gay values up to match. I spelled out some of the benefits for the wider community in doing so in my last post.

It seems to me that your approach hinges on the benefits gay marriage would bring to society, but I'm having trouble understanding why these said "benefits" wouldn't exist regardless of whether or not a commit homosexual relationship is deemed a marriage. I'm all about "bringing gay values up to match" those that exist within a traditional marriage. By all means, you are more than welcome to do so, and you have my utmost support in the matter. I don't, however, see how these benefits you have spelled out require a redefinition of marriage. Could you elaborate?

Specifically, how would a marriage license: 1.) effect your economic contribution to society, 2.) effect your upstanding morals and fortitude, 3.) effect your propensity toward monogamous relationships, etc?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

What you have just described is an example of only part of what the principal of marriage entails. Ultimately, by assuming the privilege to "take part in" what is called marriage, you are requiring a radical transformation of what marriage is in the first place (man/woman). Your intent may not be to directly "destroy" marriage as an institution, but to arbitrarily redefine it, and that is where the problem lies.

To redefine it, something would have to be taken away. This is not a redefinition. It is an expansion, at most.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

To redefine it, something would have to be taken away. This is not a redefinition. It is an expansion, at most.

Says you? Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I had said "change" instead.

Semantics is not what I'm here to debate.

But while we're at it, you might benefit from knowing that the term "redefine" is defined as follows: to reexamine or reevaluate especially with a view to change

In other words...it is in no way contingent on adding or subtracting.

Originally posted by Afewloosescrews
Specifically, how would a marriage license: 1.) effect your economic contribution to society

Marriage ceremonies are big business. Gay marriages will contribute directly to the venues, caterers, hire companies, limo businesses and every other business that is prepared to be involved.

2.) effect your upstanding morals and fortitude,

By giving legitimacy to our relationships. We are considered at best to be living as de-facto partners. Those with high moral standards consider de-facto relationships to be second rate to marriage. By default gay relationships are considered second rate. Marriage will correct this misconception.

3.) effect your propensity toward monogamous relationships, etc?

Consider this; if you are constantly told that your relationships are second rate, invalid, an abomination no good, do not contribute to society and all the other negative rhetoric that we hear, would you start to give up? There are many in the gay community who are lost and have given up on life and love because they feel persecuted. There have been many stories in the gay communities of failed relationships because of societal pressure. I've had a couple fail myself because people interfere so badly and mess with people's heads trying to get them away from the 'evil' of gay love.

Making marriages legitimate will ultimately give hope to the gay community and once some positive role models appear people will aspire toward it instead of living life like there is no tomorrow.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

My theories are fairly self-evident.

Even now I am not sure what your theory is.

Changing the 'traditional definition' will lead to XYZ.

You said XYZ would be basically unimaginably bad. You mentioned things like pedophilia and bestiality but later said they were merely examples when we pressed on those.

So spell it out. What exactly IS your theory?...

Not sure how they can be called self-evident to anyone but yourself when you haven't even really explained it. Or did I miss a post?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews

Says you? Perhaps you would be more comfortable if I had said "change" instead.

Not says me, says language. Its not a redefinition, if nothing is taken away from the original. You could say change, but expansion is really the word that fits.

And yes, these semantics do matter, as all of the rhetoric about 'redefining' marriage is nonsense.

Semantics is not what I'm here to debate.

Great. So quit using words that dont fit, at all. You say you are not here to play semantics, yet you choose the one word to garner an emotional reaction. Hmmmm....

But while we're at it, you might benefit from knowing that the term "redefine" is defined as follows: to reexamine or reevaluate especially with a view to change

Thanks for backing my statement. There is no view to change it. Only to expand it.

In other words...it is in no way contingent on adding or subtracting.

Nope, it is contingent on the word 'change' and nothing is being changed about the definition. Only expanded.

reply to post by markosity1973

Marriage ceremonies are big business. Gay marriages will contribute directly to the venues, caterers, hire companies, limo businesses and every other business that is prepared to be involved.

While this may be true, the indefinite entitlements granted to this expansive new group would more than offset whatever direct economic benefit that comes from a one time event such as a wedding. Not to mention the obvious fact that an extravagant party to celebrate the union between two individuals can take place (and does) irrespective of the procurement of a government sanctioned contract.

By giving legitimacy to our relationships. We are considered at best to be living as de-facto partners. Those with high moral standards consider de-facto relationships to be second rate to marriage. By default gay relationships are considered second rate. Marriage will correct this misconception.

I would argue against this point. Gay relationships are not considered second rate to marriage. In my view, being that same sex relationships do not fit the definition of marriage, there is no comparison to be had. Homosexual relationships are what they are...marriage is what it is. Apples and oranges.

I would still be interested in an answer to my question, however. How would expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships effect your own personal moral standards? Just because it might "give legitimacy" as you put it, how would it have any bearing on your personal convictions and values?

Consider this; if you are constantly told that your relationships are second rate, invalid, an abomination no good, do not contribute to society and all the other negative rhetoric that we hear, would you start to give up? There are many in the gay community who are lost and have given up on life and love because they feel persecuted. There have been many stories in the gay communities of failed relationships because of societal pressure. I've had a couple fail myself because people interfere so badly and mess with people's heads trying to get them away from the 'evil' of gay love.

Who is saying this? From where I'm standing, society is ready to accept homosexuality with open arms, and in many ways glorifies and promotes it. I am not approaching this argument from a moral angle but rather a socio-political one. I am asking the questions of how the social policy of gay marriage might effect our future. All I am arguing is that gay relationships don't fit the definition of marriage, and therefore cannot innately be classified as such.

I understand that in some minority circles homosexuality is still considered to be taboo, but all you have to do is look at the polls to know that same sex relationships are deemed by society to be completely acceptable. I am not convinced at all that the rampant promiscuity within the gay community is a result of societal pressure. Frankly, this just doesn't add up...after all, wouldn't you experience less scorn from society if you were to abide within the constructs of a committed relationship?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Even now I am not sure what your theory is.

Changing the 'traditional definition' will lead to XYZ.

You said XYZ would be basically unimaginably bad.

By way of an oversimplified synopsis, I'd say you've just about got it.

So spell it out. What exactly IS your theory?...

Not sure how they can be called self-evident to anyone but yourself when you haven't even really explained it. Or did I miss a post?

To avoid redundancy (of which this thread has plenty), I would suggest you go back and read the original post. If after reading the OP, you still have specific questions that haven't been addressed, don't hesitate to ask.

Sadly, I suspect that this is your backwards way of telling me that my stance, which has plainly been spelled out throughout the thread, lacks legitimacy. You are more than welcome to this opinion, but please don't try and frame it like I haven't adequately explained my view on this issue, as I have ad nauseam.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Your reasoning is flawed to the point that I can't bring myself to dedicate the time for a thorough response. Let's just say that if you can't understand the notion that expanding something fits within the parameters of changing it, I don't know if I can help you any further.

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


So would you say the definition of marriage was changed when black people fought to be allowed to get married to white people?

reply to post by Afewloosescrews


Like when we made laws against sexual intercourse with minors...

Whats to stop the government from making all sex illegal? Its not like decisions are based on reason or evidence.

*face palm*