Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Luddly Neddite]

Wrong. They not only existed, they were condoned by the church.

You're also wrong that homosexuality is somehow new. It has been a fact since humans first had sex.

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.

You said same sex marriage never existed before.

I proved they did.

FACT: there is no such thing as "traditional", one man, one woman marriage.

Marriage has changed many times through history and it change many more times.

It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do. You're a moron who compares apples to oranges.

Since you say you know everything, educate me.

How were the old same sex marriages that you first said did not exist but now say were just "different" ...

Now you say "It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do".

How? In what ways? What differences?

Prove it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

So, you're saying that there was a period where same sex unions were tolerated... but because the individuals joined through these unions, were unable to live up to the non-sexual paradigms associated with such... likely making greater and more intrusive and destructive demands upon the culture, with regard to orienting these unions towards a homosexual lifestyle, such unions were banned and the homosexuals again, relegated to the closet?

Huh...

Once again... objective reasoning tells the story. I say it HERE and it comes out THERE!

Now the would-be 'contributor', did not offer those 'facts' in evidence, because the subjective nature of it's reasoning, required that it could not discern the truth, wherein the would-be unions were NOT sexual in nature, wherein the culture was perhaps making a means by which certain individuals might 'incorporate'... without the formal acceptance of marriage. Which is to say that such was likely established as a means to offer an Alternative... but, as we see happening before our very eyes today, the Homo-lobby was incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE and likely went out of their way to voice the 14th century Equivalent of "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER: GET USED TO IT... and given the logical consequences of such, at some point the adults had to shut that crap down.

Again, the would-be contributor merely wanted to point out that people in the 14th century allowed homosexuals to marry, thus our generation SHOULD do the same thing... as if they didn't have a mother who did her best to teach then the "IF Johnny jumped off the cliff, would you?" lesson.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Education is a Liberal thing. We invented it.

Simply wrong. Saying liberals or conservatives invented education is just stupid. Shows your level of education.

Liberals did invent education. Look it up.

Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.

More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.

You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

No it wasn't... Maybe you can find isolated incidents but it has never been truly recognized until recent history.

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

I read the title and that was enough to realize that the article means nothing for your cause. It says that some historians believe that the unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. Then it proceeds to say one guy theorizes that it was sexual. Enough said.

You said same sex marriage never existed before.

I proved they did.

FACT: there is no such thing as "traditional", one man, one woman marriage.

Marriage has changed many times through history and it change many more times.

It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do. You're a moron who compares apples to oranges.

Since you say you know everything, educate me.

How were the old same sex marriages that you first said did not exist but now say were just "different" ...

Now you say "It wasn't the same kind of marriage and didn't have the same implications that today's marriages do".

How? In what ways? What differences?

Prove it.

I read it in the same link you showed me.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

... marriage equality ...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Simply wrong. Saying liberals or conservatives invented education is just stupid. Shows your level of education.

Liberals did invent education. Look it up.

Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.

More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.

You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Simply wrong. Saying liberals or conservatives invented education is just stupid. Shows your level of education.

Liberals did invent education. Look it up.

Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.

More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.

You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.

When you use the word liberal... you're referring to Leftists. Which is the Anti-thesis of the word Liberal, which conveys the advocacy for liberty.

The Former is a deceptive hijacking of a term, so that such conveys to the listener or reader, something about them which is not true, in much the same way as the use fo the word 'gay' to describe the sexual deviant conveys a false impression. Sexual deviants are not happy, merry or sportive, they're sexual deviants, who are ashamed of their deviant sexuality and who crave legitimacy; and the use of the word 'gay' demonstrates that perfectly, wherein the user seeks to convey that they're not what they are, but something else... which they feel is legitimate.

All of it is a demonstration of the unholy trinity of Left-think: Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance. Meaning that such requires deceit, which it fraudulently advances as a means to influence the ignorant.

Thus the Leftist that claims to themselves the word liberal, does so KNOWING that they oppose the liberty which they advertise as representing them... because like a child, they reject the responsibility that is intrinsic to liberty, thus that which can never be separated from it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The fact is that conservative ideology ...

Not to put too fine a point on it... but Conservatism, is not an 'ideology', per se.
Conservatism is respect for, defense of and adherence to the immutable laws of nature, which have been verifiably observed over thousands of years of human history.

This in distinct contrast to the Ideology which says: 'We believe that this is true and that is true, based upon this being in alignment with our needs, wants and desires.'

The Former is objectively reasoned and true... while the latter is subjectively reasoned and false.

Thus the former has a long track record of an efficacy, that the latter can never hope to accomplish, because the former works, every time, in every place it is tried.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

So, you're saying that there was a period where same sex unions were tolerated... but because the individuals joined through these unions, were unable to live up to the non-sexual paradigms associated with such... likely making greater and more intrusive and destructive demands upon the culture, with regard to orienting these unions towards a homosexual lifestyle, such unions were banned and the homosexuals again, relegated to the closet?

Huh...

Once again... objective reasoning tells the story. I say it HERE and it comes out THERE!

Now the would-be 'contributor', did not offer those 'facts' in evidence, because the subjective nature of it's reasoning, required that it could not discern the truth, wherein the would-be unions were NOT sexual in nature, wherein the culture was perhaps making a means by which certain individuals might 'incorporate'... without the formal acceptance of marriage. Which is to say that such was likely established as a means to offer an Alternative... but, as we see happening before our very eyes today, the Homo-lobby was incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE and likely went out of their way to voice the 14th century Equivalent of "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER: GET USED TO IT... and given the logical consequences of such, at some point the adults had to shut that crap down.

Again, the would-be contributor merely wanted to point out that people in the 14th century allowed homosexuals to marry, thus our generation SHOULD do the same thing... as if they didn't have a mother who did her best to teach then the "IF Johnny jumped off the cliff, would you?" lesson.

No, that's not what I said at all.

But now that you mention it, its no more logical or realistic to say 'marriage has always been between one man and woman so we should keep it that way'.

My post was pointing out that THAT is not true.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

#12 on the Alinsky Rules for Radicals...

 

[Pop23]

You're more than welcome to your OPINIONS but you are not welcome to call them FACTS.


Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.

So, you're saying that there was a period where same sex unions were tolerated... but because the individuals joined through these unions, were unable to live up to the non-sexual paradigms associated with such... likely making greater and more intrusive and destructive demands upon the culture, with regard to orienting these unions towards a homosexual lifestyle, such unions were banned and the homosexuals again, relegated to the closet?

Huh...

Once again... objective reasoning tells the story. I say it HERE and it comes out THERE!

Now the would-be 'contributor', did not offer those 'facts' in evidence, because the subjective nature of it's reasoning, required that it could not discern the truth, wherein the would-be unions were NOT sexual in nature, wherein the culture was perhaps making a means by which certain individuals might 'incorporate'... without the formal acceptance of marriage. Which is to say that such was likely established as a means to offer an Alternative... but, as we see happening before our very eyes today, the Homo-lobby was incapable of seeing the BIGGER PICTURE and likely went out of their way to voice the 14th century Equivalent of "WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QUEER: GET USED TO IT... and given the logical consequences of such, at some point the adults had to shut that crap down.

Again, the would-be contributor merely wanted to point out that people in the 14th century allowed homosexuals to marry, thus our generation SHOULD do the same thing... as if they didn't have a mother who did her best to teach then the "IF Johnny jumped off the cliff, would you?" lesson.

No, that's not what I said at all.

But now that you mention it, its no more logical or realistic to say 'marriage has always been between one man and woman so we should keep it that way'.

My post was pointing out that THAT is not true.

Bodey, why aren't you asking Luddy to stay with the OP?

Curious

 

[Pop23]

Just glad I'm not the Justice who's legacy will have to be:

A. Granting gays greater access to marriage than straights

Or

B. Legalizing incest.

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

This is very typical among very stupid liars:

First they ADMIT they're making it up = "I guess".

Then he says its fact.

I was very clear. I wrote "And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not yours."

And yes, IF between consenting adults, get Big Government out of our bedrooms and out of our private lives.

So incestuous marriage between consenting adults is OK with you.

Ok, got it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, that's not what I said at all.

So the quote you offered and to which I responded, precisely as you offered it, was not something which you sought to convey?

How is that my responsibility?

Of course, in reality, thus in truth, it was what you said... as the record reflects. What you do not like, is what I said about what you said and you're inability to contest it.

And yes... I can only imagine that THAT SUCKS for you. But in fairness to you, my comments were not designed to make you feel better about yourself.

So perhaps knowing that will help you through this dark and humiliating period.

But now that you mention it, its no more logical or realistic to say 'marriage has always been between one man and woman so we should keep it that way'.

Marriage is the joining of One Man and One Woman, because that is how Nature designed the human species... You know, with two distinct, but complimenting genders, the bodies of each specifically designed to join together, forming one body... as marriage joins the two, forming one legal entity.

My post was pointing out that THAT is not true.

You post was pointing out what was not true... which is as close to the truth as a Relativist is likely to get... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So incestuous marriage between consenting adults is OK with you.

Ok, got it.

Of course it is, because the would-be 'rights' of the incestuous, cannot be disregarded, once the idiots accept the ludicrous would-be 'rights' inherent to any other sexual deviancy, an in particular IT'S RIGHTS... which is all it is concerned with. It doesn't give a red rat's ass about the rights of anyone but itself and it cares even LESS about the responsibilities that are otherwise inherent in rights... the the relativist, a right is a right with NO RESPONSIBILITY for such being associated to THEM.

Sadly, for their perspective; in reality, thus in truth, there is no potential for a right, absent a correlating responsibility. No responsibility, no right. And it's truly no more complex than THAT.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

WHAT?

This is nuts.

A. Gays don't want, are not asking for, won't get "greater access to marriage than straights".

B. Completely unrelated and vile that you would even suggest it.

Really, 2 is vile? Good, I'm glad we agree. Now state the Governments compelling interest in denying a couple of same sex brothers the right to marry if the USSC rules in favor of SSM.

Not what I said at all.

I said YOU are vile for saying that marriage equality would somehow lead to incest.

Not just vile but just stupid. Just as homosexuality has always existed, so has incest.

And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not youres.

You rabid RWs want lots and lots of laws. You want Big Govt in our bedrooms. I disagree. Get govt out of our private lives.

The argument now, I guess is that incest is OK, cuz you want goverment out of our bedrooms.

Got it.

This is very typical among very stupid liars:

First they ADMIT they're making it up = "I guess".

Then he says its fact.

I was very clear. I wrote "And, I have said it a gazillion times: If its between consenting ADULTS, its their business. Not mine and not yours."

And yes, IF between consenting adults, get Big Government out of our bedrooms and out of our private lives.

So incestuous marriage between consenting adults is OK with you.

Ok, got it.

Its not a question of what is "okay with me".

Unlike nanny state RWs who want the govt to hold their hand and control every single thing they do, I believe what I wrote, but which you are just too damn stupid to read and understand.

To help you find it, I have bolded it above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

... marriage equality ...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Only in weak heads and hearts and souls.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals did invent education. Look it up.

Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.

More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.

You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

Now you are whining when you are dealt with as you have tried to deal with others.

Take what you dish, or shut up.

 

[Genevieve]

Come on people. We have some real problems in this country

18 trillion in debt
half the country on some form of govt handout
deficit spending every year
no confidence in congress or the president
the mid east burning
radical islam killing thousands because or religion
more americans in poverty than ever before
hundreds of trillions in unfunded liabilities
racial violence in our cities

and we spend hours arguing about gay marriage???? WTF is wrong with us? And yes, I am guilty of it too.

I have made my last post on a gay thread. I hope many of you will follow suit. Let the court do its job and live with the rulings

We have much more important issues to deal with than whether two gays or lesbians can call their union a marriage.

Gay marriage is important to those who want to marry within their own gender, I suppose. But it has been made a hot political topic because of its ability to separate people into groups and place people into slots of belief.

For some reason, what is MOST important in this country is being able to put everyone into a neat little pigeon hole.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

... marriage equality ...

Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Well, it certainly can be but there's no reason why there can't be other combinations.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Wrong. Claiming someone invented it is ignorant. It was developed over a loooonnnggg time. Give me a link or make a decent argument.

More education for you: Trivium - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Liberals teach because liberals invented the idea.

Liberalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

When I use the term liberal I speak of American liberals/democrats. That group does not associate with a true liberal. They are anti liberal in so many ways it is ridiculous. I'm a liberal by definition but I don't like the term because it associates me with all the fags/socialists which are not in fact real liberals. Read what a real liberal is and then you will realize it is a completely different group from US liberals.

You are a child, nothing like a Liberal.

Common tactic from a democrat. Demean opposition to make it seem as though their opinions are less valid than yours.

Now you are whining when you are dealt with as you have tried to deal with others.

Take what you dish, or shut up.

Wrong. Show me one time I did that.