A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[Artevelde]

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."

Complete nonsense, with about the same credibility as all the other wacko theories which are posted on the internet.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

 

[WinterBorn]

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."

Complete nonsense, with about the same credibility as all the other wacko theories which are posted on the internet.

You are welcome to go to the link and contact the author. There are also mentions of several religious icons (tapestries and other art work) depicting the marrying of two men.

Feel free to debunk it at your leisure.

 

[Artevelde]

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?

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

 

[Artevelde]

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."

Complete nonsense, with about the same credibility as all the other wacko theories which are posted on the internet.

You are welcome to go to the link and contact the author. There are also mentions of several religious icons (tapestries and other art work) depicting the marrying of two men.

Feel free to debunk it at your leisure.

Just because two people are depicted together on an icon doesn't mean they are married. I looked at the link. It has all the hallmarks of the typical kind of historical falsehoods read into images from the past. If you knew anything about historiography, you would know that this is - sadly - a common phenomenon.

 

[WinterBorn]

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?

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? My contention all along has been that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all. But if it is going to be, it should not bestow benefits on one group and deny them to another.

The only two semi-rational reasons I have ever seen for this are based either on religion or on an appeal to history. Neither of which should carry any weight.

So before you go out and call someone a hypocrite, do that the time to make sure you know what you are talking about. I have made my views quite clear.

 

[WinterBorn]

Complete nonsense, with about the same credibility as all the other wacko theories which are posted on the internet.

You are welcome to go to the link and contact the author. There are also mentions of several religious icons (tapestries and other art work) depicting the marrying of two men.

Feel free to debunk it at your leisure.

Just because two people are depicted together on an icon doesn't mean they are married. I looked at the link. It has all the hallmarks of the typical kind of historical falsehoods read into images from the past. If you knew anything about historiography, you would know that this is - sadly - a common phenomenon.

The John E. Boswell Lecture | CLGS

That link shows that Prof. Boswell's book was lauded in high academic circles and underwent peer review.

"In 1975 Dr. Boswell joined the Yale University faculty as an assistant professor after studying at the College of William and Mary and Harvard University. In 1990 he was named the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale where he later served a two-year term as the chair of the history department."


Studied at William & Mary and at Harvard. Became a professor at Yale. Served 2 years as chair of the history department at Yale. Not a bad resume.

 

[Artevelde]

You are welcome to go to the link and contact the author. There are also mentions of several religious icons (tapestries and other art work) depicting the marrying of two men.

Feel free to debunk it at your leisure.

Just because two people are depicted together on an icon doesn't mean they are married. I looked at the link. It has all the hallmarks of the typical kind of historical falsehoods read into images from the past. If you knew anything about historiography, you would know that this is - sadly - a common phenomenon.

The John E. Boswell Lecture | CLGS

That link shows that Prof. Boswell's book was lauded in high academic circles and underwent peer review.

"In 1975 Dr. Boswell joined the Yale University faculty as an assistant professor after studying at the College of William and Mary and Harvard University. In 1990 he was named the A. Whitney Griswold Professor of History at Yale where he later served a two-year term as the chair of the history department."


Studied at William & Mary and at Harvard. Became a professor at Yale. Served 2 years as chair of the history department at Yale. Not a bad resume.

People with far more impressive resumes have written even greater nonsense. But I see you don't address the facts that he doesn't have any real documentaru evidence for his claim. Crancks like these can be found very easily throughout academia.

 

[Artevelde]

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

First of all, where have I said any marriage is a fundamental civil right?? My contention all along has been that the gov't should not be in the marriage business at all. But if it is going to be, it should not bestow benefits on one group and deny them to another.

The only two semi-rational reasons I have ever seen for this are based either on religion or on an appeal to history. Neither of which should carry any weight.

So before you go out and call someone a hypocrite, do that the time to make sure you know what you are talking about. I have made my views quite clear.

Your views clear? I think not. In any event, I see you are too cowardly to answer the question on consenting siblings and parents and children.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They are not. Someone who has been convicted of child molestation and has served his/her prison term is perfectly free to marry if they choose. Frankly, they have more rights than gays who have committed no crime. For incest there are genetic reasons regarding offspring that make it legitimately illegal. For those underage, our society has determined that if you are not 16 or 18 (depending on the state) you do not have the capacity to legally consent to sexual relations, although with parental approval someone under the age of consent can indeed marry. And when the day comes that chickens and goats have the capacity to give consent...knock yourself out if you are so inclined.

OH BUT NO

What about Bestiality, Polygamy? Why do we have laws against those two things? Why aren't the rights of people who like teenagers protected to be with teenagers?

Its always nice to see those who oppose gay marriage repeatedly ignore posts explaining things that ruin their "if we let gays marry then the next thing someone will want to marry their dog!" nonsense.

Let me post it for the 4th or 5th time. It boils down to consenting adults.

As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal?

It's not nice to see that you ignore one thing animals cannot give consent for anything. They are sold monthly for breeding stock. Do they give their consent then? Do they give their consent to used as food? Please enlighten us.

As for polygamy, give me a reason it is illegal

Would people going to jail be enough reason to say it's illegal?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

It's called cause and effect.

When do we stop giving special right to everybody.

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

There is no right to marry, give gays a right to marry is giving someone a special right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

One thing animals can't give consent for anything they are used for food did we get their consent for that? They are used for breed stock do they consent to be used for that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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."

Fruit loop, you know what you posted is a lie. There is scripture in the bible they shows homosexual acts are a sin. Now why would the early church of CHRISTIANS do something they know God look at as sin?

 

[tjvh]

Why not set up a Reservation where all the Gays can live in peace with their own set of Rights and Laws written as they see fit. I mean reeeeeeally. They demand special status when they become victims of a crime, they want all the benefits which are allowed Married people (those who do in fact produce offspring), which includes Employment, Medical, and Tax benefits, etc. ENOUGH ALREADY. For a group that demands EQUAL treatment... They sure do ask for A LOT. It's time to look at THE most discriminated person in America... The single male who likes girls, who do NOT enjoy those financial benefits Gay people so actively seek.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why not set up a Reservation where all the Gays can live in peace with their own set of Rights and Laws written as they see fit. I mean reeeeeeally. They demand special status when they become victims of a crime, they want all the benefits which are allowed Married people (those who do in fact produce offspring), which includes Employment, Medical, and Tax benefits, etc. ENOUGH ALREADY. For a group that demands EQUAL treatment... They sure do ask for A LOT. It's time to look at THE most discriminated person in America... The single male who likes girls, who do NOT enjoy those financial benefits Gay people so actively seek.

Intermcamps? Thats would go over really good.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Thousands of posts and nobody has identified a compelling need for government sanctioned gay marriage.

Pissing off the religious kooks, that's a pretty compelling need.

Or at least it would be funny.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Thousands of posts and nobody has identified a compelling need for government sanctioned gay marriage.

It is not government sanctioned.
It is equal protection under the existing laws of obtaining a marriage license.

 

[Gadawg73]

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?

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

So you also oppose mass murderers from marrying.
Start a thread on that.
Sure, right.
Gay marriage is a non issue the same as mass murderers getting married.
Same as child molestors getting married.
You want to deny someone based on their sexuality yet see no problem with allowing it for someone that is a criminal.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Dumbass, Constitutional Amendments in the states all call for a BAN on gay marriage.
You vote yes you vote for the ban.
You vote no you oppose the ban.
Comprende?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think I have no real hardline stance on adult incest.

What a hypocritical cop-out. Do you believe allowing all and any consenting adults to marry is a fundamental civil right or not?

So you also oppose mass murderers from marrying.
Start a thread on that.
Sure, right.
Gay marriage is a non issue the same as mass murderers getting married.
Same as child molestors getting married.
You want to deny someone based on their sexuality yet see no problem with allowing it for someone that is a criminal.

If people have the right to marry what happens when someone is jilted by a lover and the other person does not want to marry them? After all it is their right and the other person is restricting that persons right. Does the other person have the option to sue?