Would Most Gays Have Settled for Civil Unions Instead Of Marriages?

[Maryland Patriot]

Gays evil. Check.
Blacks evil. Check.
Mexicans evil. Check.
Women evil. Check.
Jews evil. Check.

Welcome to the GOP.

Gays that want to force everyone to accept them. Evil, Check
Blacks / Whites / Purple polka dots who don't want to work, Evil, Check
Mexicans / any other nationality who enters the USA illegally / undocumented. Evil, Check.
You have to tell your own lies about women, I dick mine on a regular basis, she smiles, it's all good. Check
Jews / any other ethnic group who is different, Character assassinate / talk shit about. Evil, Check

You just can't make this shit up folks, faggots who see the world through a vile and putrid polarized pair of glasses.
Yes folks that is your classic Democrat / Liberal / Progressive

You couldn't dick your dog.

But thanks for admitting I am right.

Only a nasty fucking faggot, like you, would dick his dog ...............

Nasty fucking vile faggot, poor innocent dog ......................

Im curious about why the only thing he focused on was the line with dick in it.
Hmmmmm

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Gays evil. Check.
Blacks evil. Check.
Mexicans evil. Check.
Women evil. Check.
Jews evil. Check.

Welcome to the GOP.

Gays that want to force everyone to accept them. Evil, Check
Blacks / Whites / Purple polka dots who don't want to work, Evil, Check
Mexicans / any other nationality who enters the USA illegally / undocumented. Evil, Check.
You have to tell your own lies about women, I dick mine on a regular basis, she smiles, it's all good. Check
Jews / any other ethnic group who is different, Character assassinate / talk shit about. Evil, Check

You just can't make this shit up folks, faggots who see the world through a vile and putrid polarized pair of glasses.
Yes folks that is your classic Democrat / Liberal / Progressive

You couldn't dick your dog.

But thanks for admitting I am right.

Only a nasty fucking faggot, like you, would dick his dog ...............

Nasty fucking vile faggot, poor innocent dog ......................

Im curious about why the only thing he focused on was the line with dick in it.
Hmmmmm

He's both lusting after my dominating manner and jealous some lucky woman is getting it from me .....................

ROFLMMFAO ..................

 

[PratchettFan]

The temperance movement lost because they were stopping people from doing what they wanted to do. The anti-SSM movement lost for the same reason. People aren't seeking acceptance, they are demanding it. Good for them.

The temperance movement lost because that is not who we were societally.

Religion forced that change, gays have forced this change.

Eventually the good people will have enough and things will change.

That's the way it went down in Rome.

The society had fallen into such disgust and vile that it was easy for the Christians to come in and put homosexuality back into the closet in Rome.

History will repeat itself.

If that helps you out, then please go ahead and believe it.

It is truth. don't act like it is not ..................

It is a total fantasy, but I am fine with you thinking otherwise. This is a free country and there is no law that says you have to live in the real world.

Under Christian rule
Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic.[194] Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution was banned by Philip the Arab. A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriage.[195]

By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire were punishable by burning.[196] "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code.[197] It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian, that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:[198] all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.[199] Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath following a series of disasters around 542 and 559.[200]
Homosexuality in ancient Rome - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


History of Christianity and homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denominational positions

This article focuses on the history of homosexuality and Christianity from the beginnings of the Church through the mid 1900s. For current teachings of Christian Churches on homosexuality see Homosexuality and Christianity.

Christian leaders have written about homosexual male-male sexual activities since the first decades of Christianity; female-female sexual behaviour was essentially ignored.[1] Throughout the majority of Christian history most theologians and Christian denominations have viewed homosexual behavior as immoral or sinful. However, in the past century some prominent theologians and Christian religious groups have espoused a wide variety of beliefs and practices towards homosexuals, including the establishment of some 'open and accepting' congregations that actively support LGBT members.

Early Christianity
Main article: Early Christianity
See also: History of same-sex unions
Prior to the rise of Christianity, certain "homosexual"[2] practices had existed among certain groups, with some degree of social acceptance in ancient Rome and ancient Greece (e.g. the pederastic relationship of an adult Greek male with a Greek youth, or of a Roman citizen with a slave). It is understood by some that St. Paul was only addressing such practices in Romans 1: 26–27, while others usually see these verses as condemning all forms of homoeroticism.

Plutarch's Erotikos (Dialogue on Love) argues that

“ the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail."[3] ”
He also says

“ we regard men who take pleasure in passive submission as practicing the lowest kind of vice. ”
[4][verification needed].

The Judaic prohibitions found in Leviticus 18:22 (see also Leviticus 18) and 20:13 purportedly condemn male-male sexual interaction with the latter saying 'And if a man also lies with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

In his fourth homily on Romans,[5] St. John Chrysostom argued in the fourth century that homosexual acts are worse than murder and so degrading that they constitute a kind of punishment in itself, and that enjoyment of such acts actually makes them worse, "for suppose I were to see a person running naked, with his body all besmeared with mire, and yet not covering himself, but exulting in it, I should not rejoice with him, but should rather bewail that he did not even perceive that he was doing shamefully." He also said:

“ But nothing can there be more worthless than a man who has pandered himself. For not the soul only, but the body also of one who hath been so treated, is disgraced, and deserves to be driven out everywhere. ”
However, he emphasizes, in P.G. 60:417, col. 1, near bottom of the column,that he (and Paul) is not referring to two men who are in love with one another, but who burn in their appetite for each other. He writes, clarifying Paul's position in Romans 1,

“ he did not say that they fell in love [< "eros"] or had passion for each other, but rather that they `burned in their appetite for each
other'.

”
Historian John Boswell contends that adelphopoiesis, a Christian rite for uniting two persons of the same sex as "spiritual brothers/sisters", amounted to an approved outlet for romantic and indeed sexual love between couples of the same sex. Boswell also drew attention to Saints Sergius and Bacchus, whose icon depicts the two standing together with Jesus between or behind them, a position he identifies with a pronubus or "best man". Critics of Boswell's views have argued that the union created was more like blood brotherhood; and that this icon is a typical example of an icon depicting two saints who were martyred together, with the usual image of Christ that appears on many religious icons, and therefore that there is no indication that it depicts a "wedding". But Saints Sergius and Bacchus were both referred to as erastai in ancient Greek manuscripts, the same word used to describe lovers (Boswell).

The 16th Canon of the Council of Ancyra (314)[6] prescribed a penance of at least twenty years' duration for those "who have done the irrational" (alogeuesthai). At the time this was written, it referred to bestiality, not homosexuality. However, later Latin translations translated it to include both.[7]

In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans declared the death penalty for a male who took on the passive role of a bride (rather than marry as equals with another man).[8] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius denounced males "acting the part of a woman", condemning those who were guilty of such acts to be publicly burned.[9]

The Middle Ages
Main article: Homosexuality and Medieval Christianity


St. Thomas Aquinas


Saints Sergius and Bacchus
Historian John Boswell, in his essay The Church and the Homosexual,Jonnel Cafe is one of them. [10] attributes Christianity's denunciations of "homosexuality" to an alleged rising intolerance in Europe throughout the 12th century, which he claims was also reflected in other ways. His premise is that when sodomy wasn't being explicitly and "officially" denounced, it was therefore being "tolerated". Historian R. W. Southern disagreed with Boswell's claims and wrote in 1990 that "the only relevant generalization which emerges from the penitential codes down to the eleventh century is that sodomy was treated on about the same level as copulation with animals." Southern further notes that "Boswell thinks that the omission of sodomy from the stringent new code of clerical celibacy issued by the Roman Council of 1059 implies a degree of tolerance. Countering this is the argument that the Council of 1059 had more urgent business on hand; and in any case, sodomy had been condemned by Leo IX at Rheims in 1049."[11] Similarly, Pierre Payer asserted in 1984 that Boswell's thesis (as outlined in his Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance) ignores an alleged wealth of condemnations found in the pentitential literature prior to the 12th century.[12] More recently, historian Allan Tulchin wrote in 2007 in the Journal of Modern History that, "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that." [13]

The most influential theologian of the Medieval period was Saint Thomas Aquinas, regarded by Catholics as a Doctor of the Church. His moral theology contained a strong element of deontological natural law. On his view, not all things to which a person might be inclined are "natural" in the morally relevant sense; rather, only the inclination to the full and proper expression of the human nature, and inclinations which align with that inclination, are natural. Contrary inclinations are perversions of the natural in the sense that they do seek a good, but in a way destructive of good.[14][15][16]

This view points from the natural to the Divine, because (following Aristotle) he said all people seek happiness; but according to Aquinas, happiness can only finally be attained through the Beatific Vision.[17] Therefore all sins are also against the natural law. But the natural law of many aspects of life is knowable apart from special revelation by examining the forms and purposes of those aspects. It is in this sense that Aquinas considered homosexuality unnatural, since it involves a kind of partner other than the kind to which the purpose of sexuality points. He considered it comparable to heterosexual sex for pleasure (rather than reproduction)[18]

An earlier Doctor of the Church, St. Peter Damian, wrote the Liber Gomorrhianus, an extended attack on both homosexuality and masturbation.[19] He portrayed homosexuality as a counter-rational force undermining morality, religion, and society itself,[20] and in need of strong suppression lest it spread even and especially among clergy.[21]

Hildegard of Bingen, born seven years after the death of St. Peter Damian, reported seeing visions and recorded them in Scivias (short for Scito vias Domini, "Know the Ways of the Lord"[22]). In Book II Vision Six, she quotes God as condemning same-sex intercourse, including lesbianism; "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed".[citation needed]

Her younger contemporary Alain de Lille personified the theme of sexual sin in opposition to nature in The Complaint of Nature by having nature herself denounce sexual immorality and especially homosexuality as rebellion against her direction, terming it confusion between masculine and feminine and between subject and object. The Complaint also includes a striking description of the neglect of womanhood:

“ Though all the beauty of man humbles itself before the fairness of woman, being always inferior to her glory; though the face of the daughter of Tyndaris is brought into being and the comeliness of Adonis and Narcissus, conquered, adores her; for all this she is scorned, although she speaks as beauty itself, though her godlike grace affirms her to be a goddess, though for her the thunderbolt would fail in the hand of Jove, and every sinew of Apollo would pause and lie inactive, though for her the free man would become a slave, and Hippolytus, to enjoy her love, would sell his very chastity. Why do so many kisses lie untouched on maiden lips, and no one wish to gain a profit from them?[23] ”
The tone of the denunciations often indicate a more than theoretical concern. Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orléans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II.[24][unreliable source?] In 1395 there was a transvestite homosexual prostitute arrested in London with some records surviving,[25] and the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards included the denunciation of priestly celibacy as a cause of sodomy.[26]

Otto III was intimate with many men (sharing the bed and bath)[27] and was anointed by the Pope to be the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire,

The Reformation and Counter-Reformation
Martin Luther's view of homosexuality is recorded in Plass's What Luther Says:[28]

“ The vice of the Sodomites is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature. ”
Diverging opinions in modern era
Main article: Homosexuality and Christianity
See also: Biblical law in Christianity
Historically, Christian churches have regarded homosexual sex as sinful, based on the Catholic understanding of the natural law and traditional interpretations of certain passages in the Bible. This position is today affirmed by groups representing most Christians, including the Catholic Church (1.1 billion members), Orthodox Church (250 million members), and some Protestant denominations, especially Evangelical churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention (16.3 million members) and the United Methodist Church (12 million members).[29] Restorationist churches such as the LDS Church (13 million members) also view homosexual sex as sinful.

However, a minority interpret biblical passages differently and argue that homosexuality can be seen as morally acceptable. This approach has been taken by a number of denominations in North America, notably the United Church of Canada (2.8 million members), the United Church of Christ (1.1 million members), the Moravian Church (825,000 members), the Anglican Episcopal church, the Anglican Church of Canada (800,000 members), the Liberal Catholic Church, Friends General Conference, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) (1.9 million members), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (3.9 million members) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada. Relatively many denominations had taken this approach in Europe including united, reformed and Lutheran churches: the Evangelical Church in Germany (24.5 million members), Church of Sweden (6.6 million members), Church of Norway, Church of Denmark, Protestant Church of the Netherlands (3.9 million members), Church of Iceland, United Protestant Church in Belgium, United Protestant Church of France, Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches, Methodist Church of Great Britain (330,000 members) and Church of Scotland.

A new denomination, the Metropolitan Community Church (40,000 members), has also come into existence specifically to serve the Christian LGBT community. However, individual Christians maintain a variety of beliefs on this subject that may or may not correspond to their official church doctrines. Some mainline Protestant denominations in the United States have also removed language in their bylaws which suggest that homosexuality is a sinful state of being. The Book of Order used by the PCUSA reflects this change.[citation needed] Similar modifications in position can also be seen in the Lutheran ELCA and Disciples of Christ.[30] Although acceptance of sexually active LGBT laity has increased in terms of actual practice and in terms of church law, some of these denominations continue to limit leadership and clergy roles for LGBT persons. A number of denominations, like the aforementioned United Methodists, remain divided over the issues relating to homosexuality, with a large number of members pushing for changes in the church's Book of Discipline to allow for full inclusion of LGBT persons in the life of the church.[31]

In 1989 The Evangelical Network was formed with LGBT Evangelical Christians it is a network of churches, ministries and Christian workers.

Ok. It is a very involved fantasy. Glad it works for you.

 

[Political Junky]

Just some food for thought. Libs will attack because I'm not one of them, but I wish for once I could get a few thoughtful answers.

I know some who would have been just fine with civil unions. Still a commitment and they get all the tax and insurance benefits of a married couple.

It seems that it wasn't gays crying for marriage, but rather those who dislike, or even hate, religion. The left often takes up causes that don't exist, at least not until they convince enough people that they should feel insulted, belittled or even outraged. The left has an agenda and they will use any means or any people to get what they want.

Insisting that gays must be able to use the term 'marriage' meant redefining it. It was never about the right to legally commit to another person and enjoy all the perks of being a legal couple.

This is an interesting article that does point out some things regarding the recent push for gay marriage. I don't expect any real discussion from the left, but I will remind you libs that I attended my niece's wedding and supported her and her girlfriend. Funny, they didn't care what the union was called. They wanted commitment and the ability to file joint taxes and cover each other on insurance. Marriage is a religious term adopted by lawmakers, but can anyone tell me why the language was more important than the act?

The left has never been supportive of marriage. Some feminists even called it legal slavery. Why the dismissal of any talk regarding civil unions that would have been the exact same thing only without the religious ties?


"The media created a false debate "marriage or no" to paint a battle between the evil bigots and righteous crusaders. No one mentioned the civil union approach. That solution was junked quickly, tipping the real target for using gays: religion. The Supreme Court even mentioned granting dignity in the ruling, which is comical considered how smeared marriage has become. If marriage is an oppressive institution for women, why push gays into it? If it is old and archaic, why do gays want it? Humpty Dumpty leftism strikes again! Marriage is awesome right now for this tiny group!

They want it because despite the smearing, we know the value of it. The emotional connection between couples. A newer wedding reception tradition is the anniversary dance. All married couples get on the dance floor to dance to one song. Every ten seconds the host asks couples married under X years to leave the floor. Those younger couples create a circle around those left dancing, and the couples are whittled down until it is the married couple with the longest tenure left. The crowd claps for the 50, 60 or 65 years the couple has been together. Some people will get teary-eyed because they recognize what those years mean. Usually, that couple shuffling on the dance floor is the elder statesmen duo of the family, and this wedding and the crowd is the extended product of their union. Song ends, the old man kisses his bride, and the new bride and groom hug the old couple. That long lived couple is the hoped for future for the new couple.

Everyone present understands that communal moment. Those dances make for great Kodak moments, but you would never see Hollywood push that. The media will push as much programming as possible to get you to forget the spiritual element to marriage. The weak-willed, who will forget they cried as they saw their grandparents dancing at a wedding, made the jump from civil unions for gays to marriage for gays because "Who cares? Marriage doesn’t matter anymore." That moment of past and future and the implications of children for a new generation to repeat the cycle is part of the sacred moment and public recognition of marriage.

That spirit and legitimacy could never be granted by a government in a contentious manner to homosexuals who cannot reproduce. This is lost on the egalitarian pushers, it is lost on the herd creatures who forget, but it is not lost on us."

http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33857

No -