A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WinterBorn]

One of the big complaints from those who oppose gay marriage is that we shouldn't redefine marriage, since it has had the same definition since the beginning of time.

However, this is not true.

anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"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)."

"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Special rights? We want to give ordinary benefits to more people. Can you see the difference?

Classifying marriage as a mere right is shortsighted. It's an institution that serves a societal purpose.

Indeed it does. And besides having children without outside assistance, gay marriages provide all the benefits to society that straight marriages do. So they should receive the gov't benefits that married couples receive.

Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.

 

[WinterBorn]

Classifying marriage as a mere right is shortsighted. It's an institution that serves a societal purpose.

Indeed it does. And besides having children without outside assistance, gay marriages provide all the benefits to society that straight marriages do. So they should receive the gov't benefits that married couples receive.

Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.

No one said it did. In fact, if your marriage is based on your wife smoking your pole or you munching her carpet, you are debasing the institution.

This is about couples who love each other and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship.

But feel free to tell me what benefits marriage gives society that gay marriage does not?

 

[BDBoop]

Classifying marriage as a mere right is shortsighted. It's an institution that serves a societal purpose.

Indeed it does. And besides having children without outside assistance, gay marriages provide all the benefits to society that straight marriages do. So they should receive the gov't benefits that married couples receive.

Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.

It's whose, idiot. Whose.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Indeed it does. And besides having children without outside assistance, gay marriages provide all the benefits to society that straight marriages do. So they should receive the gov't benefits that married couples receive.

Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.

No one said it did. In fact, if your marriage is based on your wife smoking your pole or you munching her carpet, you are debasing the institution.

This is about couples who love each other and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship.

But feel free to tell me what benefits marriage gives society that gay marriage does not?

And the government doesn't need to sanction "love."

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry bro. But who's pole your taking or who's carpet your munching doesn't entitle you to anything.

No one said it did. In fact, if your marriage is based on your wife smoking your pole or you munching her carpet, you are debasing the institution.

This is about couples who love each other and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship.

But feel free to tell me what benefits marriage gives society that gay marriage does not?

And the government doesn't need to sanction "love."

Then what is it sanctioning when you get married? Its not about pole smoking or carpet munching, and you say its not about love. What is it about?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No one said it did. In fact, if your marriage is based on your wife smoking your pole or you munching her carpet, you are debasing the institution.

This is about couples who love each other and want to spend their lives in a committed relationship.

But feel free to tell me what benefits marriage gives society that gay marriage does not?

And the government doesn't need to sanction "love."

Then what is it sanctioning when you get married? Its not about pole smoking or carpet munching, and you say its not about love. What is it about?

There's the implied possibility of a union that could result in children. Were it not so; then the govt. would not have a vested interest.

 

[WinterBorn]

And the government doesn't need to sanction "love."

Then what is it sanctioning when you get married? Its not about pole smoking or carpet munching, and you say its not about love. What is it about?

There's the implied possibility of a union that could result in children. Were it not so; then the govt. would not have a vested interest.

So if gays agree to try and have children (with outside assistance) you would go along with them getting married?

Also, if this is the entire basis for a marriage, then post-menopausal women shouldn't be allowed to marry. Plus, shouldn't couples be required to agree to try to have kids at some point in their marriage?

What about a woman who has had a hystorectomy? Is she allowed to marry?

 

[BDBoop]

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.

Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.

Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.

Yea, that sucks. I religiously stay away from auto pays b/c I'm scatter brained and I forget to cancel and I don't trust people generally when I've even canceled a subscription.

 

[BDBoop]

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.

Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.

Yea, that sucks. I religiously stay away from auto pays b/c I'm scatter brained and I forget to cancel and I don't trust people generally when I've even canceled a subscription.

They did that $1 thing - I didn't sign up for auto-pay, that's what has me so torqued. I did a quick search. They're pretty much famous for this particular game. So, either they cancel when I call them tomorrow, or I cancel my debit card so they can't continue to play this game. Either way, I had a fit of the major ballistics on their behalf this evening.

 

[WinterBorn]

^^^

LOL - Thanks for the tip.

Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.

Yea, that sucks. I religiously stay away from auto pays b/c I'm scatter brained and I forget to cancel and I don't trust people generally when I've even canceled a subscription.

I am the same way. The few times I have done it I always forgot and paid more than I wanted.

Plus I am paranoid that they will ignore the cancellation.

 

[BDBoop]

Sorry. I'm cranky. Stamps.com has been helping themselves to $15.99/mth, which has NOTHING to do with you. I apologize for my rudeness.

Yea, that sucks. I religiously stay away from auto pays b/c I'm scatter brained and I forget to cancel and I don't trust people generally when I've even canceled a subscription.

I am the same way. The few times I have done it I always forgot and paid more than I wanted.

Plus I am paranoid that they will ignore the cancellation.

Exactly. So - the minute they choose not to, I cancel my card.

I am having mad chats with myself about not swearing at them tomorrow. I'm a claims intake rep. I know this is not the fault of the person at the other end of the phone.

I will behave.

 

[Artevelde]

Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.

If you allowed people to marry animals that wouldn't change anybody else's marriage either. But I still think it wouldn't be a good idea. Do you?

 

[Artevelde]

Frankly, I don't care. What are we talking maybe 1 couple out of every 500,000 or more in America?

Zero effect on society.

If marriage is that insignificant to you then the logical thing would be to simply abolish marriage in civil law.

No, what I said was insignificant is the number of people who would actually want to take part in an incestuous marriage.

.

So you

a) feel it is every bit as much their "civil right" as that of gays and it should therefore absolutely be allowed

b) feel that whether something is a "civil right" boils down to numbers?

 

[Artevelde]

How is that reasonable for those that are banned from marriage?
Where is morality mentioned in THE LAW?

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

Yes, we should ban mass murderers from marrying.

I am sure we will save this nation from every problem we face if we ban two people that are committed to each other of the same sex to get married.
Just last night I woke up shocked by the fact that somewhere near me there may be 2 men or 2 women that love each other laying in their bed as they sleep. Then I had this terrible thought? What if they want to get married? I spent the rest of the night worrying about the devestating impact that would have on my life, my marriage and career if 2 gays or 2 lesbians were allowed to have a wedding ceremony to get married. If that was allowed I just do not know how I could go on with my life. What would be the purpose in my life if those 2 homosexuals were allowed to get married and make that kind of commitment to each other?
And now we have those that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and set all of us at ease. We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the GOVERNMENT what it can not do which is what the Constitution was founded on.
No, we do not need tax reform, we do not need to end the massive deficit, we do not need energy reform, healthcare reform, tax reform and earmark reform. We do not need fiscal responsibily.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marrying and all of a sudden that makes us a moral nation again over night and everything else is solved.

The discussion is not about "banning" something, but about introducing a completely new concept of marriage and tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard.

 

[WinterBorn]

Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.

If you allowed people to marry animals that wouldn't change anybody else's marriage either. But I still think it wouldn't be a good idea. Do you?

Still ignoring the Consenting Adults thing?

 

[WinterBorn]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.
Are you in favour of letting anybody marry anybody?

Yes, we should ban mass murderers from marrying.

I am sure we will save this nation from every problem we face if we ban two people that are committed to each other of the same sex to get married.
Just last night I woke up shocked by the fact that somewhere near me there may be 2 men or 2 women that love each other laying in their bed as they sleep. Then I had this terrible thought? What if they want to get married? I spent the rest of the night worrying about the devestating impact that would have on my life, my marriage and career if 2 gays or 2 lesbians were allowed to have a wedding ceremony to get married. If that was allowed I just do not know how I could go on with my life. What would be the purpose in my life if those 2 homosexuals were allowed to get married and make that kind of commitment to each other?
And now we have those that want a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and set all of us at ease. We have needed this for such a long time. How fitting to use The United States Constitution, a document that is dedicated to the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people what they can not do, rather than tell the GOVERNMENT what it can not do which is what the Constitution was founded on.
No, we do not need tax reform, we do not need to end the massive deficit, we do not need energy reform, healthcare reform, tax reform and earmark reform. We do not need fiscal responsibily.
What we need is a Constitutional Amendment to ban gays from marrying and all of a sudden that makes us a moral nation again over night and everything else is solved.

The discussion is not about "banning" something, but about introducing a completely new concept of marriage and tossing a couple of thousands of years of human societal norms overboard.

There are records of the Catholic Church having men marrying men hundreds of years ago.


from: anthropologist: When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

"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)."

"Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded."


"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."


"It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ."

 

[Artevelde]

Thousands of posts here and still not one person that opposes gay marriage has identified anything that would change in their marriage and life if gay folk were allowed to get married.
Same as the military allowing gays. Nothing changed.

If you allowed people to marry animals that wouldn't change anybody else's marriage either. But I still think it wouldn't be a good idea. Do you?

Still ignoring the Consenting Adults thing?

No I'm not and if you read my earlier postings you would know that I don't. I was responding to another fallacious argument here.

As for the consenting adults, this means you favour allowing adult brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children to marry?