Quote:

But the word "marriage" is already taken.

Heisenberg...perhaps you can tell us, where in the bible, the word "marriage" is used...

I've always felt on this issue the way you do Karl, the government has no power to define marriage in any way.

Mpilar, that's what you got out of what I said? Are you quizzing me? But if you insist, the Greek word translated as the the English word "marriage" is used in Matthew 22:30 and 24:38 in the New International Version. There are two of the dozens in the Old and New Testaments in some form, marry, married, marriage. And yes, they're referring to one man and one woman. And Matthew was written 1,700 years before the US Constitution and tranlated into English in the 1500's.

The Constitution and Amendments are mere suggestions unless "we the people" are willing to fight and die to protect them.

I don't see that happening soon as many appear to welcome the tyranny.

Gay men have been getting married for decades. Usually to Liza Minnelli.

...and we've all been taking it up the ass for decades.

"Catholics are really ****** up when it comes to the marriage vows. My neighbor divorced his first wife about 30 years ago. He was born into the Catholic church (by no choice of his own) and now is a long-time recovering Catholic and belongs to another church of his own choosing. His second wife decided that she wanted to become a Catholic. He had no problem with that. It was her choice. She went through about 8 months of hardcore catechism classes to prepare for her baptism and the sacraments. About a month before it was time to receive her holy baptism the priest notified her that since her husband was a former Catholic that they would have to ask his former wife a series of questions (very personal - to include questions about their sex life and reasons for divorce) - before the woman could be accepted into the Church. The reason given is that it was the churches position that once married you are never really divorced in the eyes of the Catholic religion. My neighbor was fit to be tied. He hadn't even talked to his former wife in close to 30 years and was not on good terms with her. He went down to the Parish and lit into the priest for putting his wife through 8 months of catechism classes and then laying this requirement on her. Consequently, she never became a Catholic. Had she withheld the fact that her husband was an ex-Catholic all of this could have been avoided. No wonder the Catholics are having a hard time finding new good members who aren't from south of the border. "


This only matters if they were not married yet, if they were to get married as a sacramental marraige he would need an annulment or there is no marraige. so if that is the case then the priest knew was he was talking about.

"Heisenberg...perhaps you can tell us, where in the bible, the word "marriage" is used..."

It doesnt need to be in the Bible, its called tradition jackass. (oh and yes the Bible as we know it is a tradition.)

Quote:

It doesnt need to be in the Bible, its called tradition jackass. (oh and yes the Bible as we know it is a tradition.)

The Bible is a book. What's your point?

My point was marriage existed long before the US Constitution. Homosexuality also existed long before the US Constitution. Two men or two women getting "married" is a very recent phenomenon.

Quote:

It doesnt need to be in the Bible, its called tradition jackass.

Yeah, so was slavery moron...go **** yourself.

Quote:

Two men or two women getting "married" is a very recent phenomenon.

BULL****!!! Before the rise of Christianity & it's bloody take over, the so called pagan religions had same sex couples, and many homosexual, bisexual, transexual people also became shaman, medicine men, etc & were highly revered. Just because your grasp of "recent" history of the world is based on a Judeo-Christian perspective doesn't mean that's the way it always was.

And I do not mean to say that anyone is a any particular religion, it is simply that history is written by the victors & the Judeo-Christian hierarchy through the last few millennia has chosen to destroy as much evidence as possible about the leanings of what they have termed pagan beliefs & the lifestyles associated with them

The thing that boggles me regarding gay marriage are the proponents who cite the 14th ammendment and equal protection as for its constitutionality, yet many of those supporters also seem to have no problem with hate crime laws.

Aye. The 14th is why eventually all of these laws restricting marriage will get shot down. At least, that's my opinion.

No opinion as I haven't thought about hate crimes, but here's a link for you. The hate crime laws seem to find current justification in the 13th Amendment, not the 14th, which allows Congress to regulate any attempts to instill fear to control or coerce those of a particular race. Some Commerce Clause justification used as well.

http://joshblogs.wordpress.com/2009/10/2....

And in practice: http://www.necn.com/08/06/12/Appeals-cou....

Redhatty, I don't claim to be a historical scholar. I've read that Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were homosexual/bi-sexual. I defer to your expert knowledge on the destruction of evidence from the ancient "pagans". Are you aware of records that show these men were MARRIED to other men? Of course, since "as much evidence as possible" was destroyed, it might be difficult to prove that same-sex marriage existed in ancient periods.

Quote:

Before the rise of Christianity.......transexual people also became shaman, medicine men, etc & were highly revered.

Did the ancient cultures actually have transexual people? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't transexual the term used for the person who changed sexes through surgery and hormones? Did they really have "gender re-assignment surgery" back in 400 BC (or to be politically correct, 400 BCE)?

Quote:

Did the ancient cultures actually have transexual people?

Men that were more effeminate than masculine & women that were more masculine than effeminate, yes. I would guess that today's nomenclature for it would be androgynous rather than transexual, but androgynous leads one today to think of someone who it is difficult to tell gender one way or the other. No there wasn't gender reassignment, but even today, many people define themselves as transexual, without having surgery.

Heisenberg, prior to (and for quite some time during) the rise of Judeo-Christianity, Marriage was a bit different than today. In general, if two people chose each other & lived together, they were married. Aristocracy held weddings, the rest "tied the knot" (literally, wrists were tied together for a period), jumped the broom, or other small ceremony that the rest of the villagers accepted as a joining. Also a joining could be severed (similar to a divorce today, just much less expensive.)

As Karl has pointed out repeatedly in the past, prior to the Civil Rights Act, many marriages were nothing more than a recording of names in a family bible, even if there was a Judeo-Christian marriage ceremony performed, license (and the tax for said piece of paper to the state) was not necessary.

So would there be documentation of two men being joined, probably not, even though it did happen in rare circumstances (and seriously considering how many male/female marriages there are, two men or two women being married would still be a statistical rarity even today) but then again there really wasn't much documentation for ANY joinings or marriages

Fair enough Red. Do you have a prediction on the Supreme Court's upcoming rulings on the DOMA and other various state laws relating to same sex marriage?

No, No predictions. I'm with Karl though, the government has no business being in the marriage business.

Since the first state legalized it, I don't remember which state is was, I've always assumed the SCOTUS would use the Interstate Commerce clause to make it legal in every state. I don't think that's a positive but we've got bigger problems with the financials and deficits.

Perhaps we should return to the way things were 2500 years ago. Which culture from then shall we emulate? Do we follow the whole thing or do we, you know, sort of pick and choose, buffet style, only those portions which fit our 21st century sensibilities?

Arw, technically, you already do pick & choose. Holidays like Valentine's Day, Easter, Halloween & Christmas all have pagan roots- Lupercalia, Ishtar or Ostara, Samhain & Yule are the pagan names of the exact same holidays & most of the observances are still in effect in the ways that these holidays are still celebrated today :)

I know of a dude who spent a fair bit of time and effort trying to show a connection between Ostara and "Easter"... the payoff was a mere bagatelle called "academic tenure".

Apparently the magnitude of the motivation was insufficient to persuade him to fabricate things; he came up empty (with much unhappiness).

Tully