Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! - Page 16
   

       The Horse Forum > Life Beyond Horses > General Off Topic Discussion

Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court!

This is a discussion on Gay Marriage Is going to Supreme Court! within the General Off Topic Discussion forums, part of the Life Beyond Horses category

    Like Tree127Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        04-02-2013, 08:24 AM
      #151
    Started
    Marriage, historically has been a civil institution. Most marriages, until quite recently, were arranged -- they were business arrangements/economic liaisons for growing family wealth, safely, and power, not for love or even procreation in many cases. The notion of "love" and being blessed by the church wasn't added until much later.

    I think it's safe to say that throughout history, marriage is a bond between two people... a bond of responsibility, commitment, challenge, and legalities (and more recently, love). This concept of marriage has not changed and I see no reason why it should be denied to gays and lesbians.
    Joe4d likes this.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        04-02-2013, 08:53 AM
      #152
    Green Broke
    Good point , red horse, and now that I think about it, absolutely correct. Something to remember next time I get into a discussion with a Bible thumper rewriting history along all their "christian value founding lines"
         
        04-02-2013, 10:07 AM
      #153
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RedHorseRidge    
    Marriage, historically has been a civil institution.
    Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?

    80 million, or 25% of Americans, are Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in the Catholic church (between a man and woman, by the way), and has been for 2,000 years, with a requirement for the last 500 years that marriage must be performed in the church.

    In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.

    I hope it is not history that you teach...
         
        04-02-2013, 11:07 AM
      #154
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?

    80 million, or 25% of Americans, are Catholic. Marriage is a holy sacrament in the Catholic church (between a man and woman, by the way), and has been for 2,000 years, with a requirement for the last 500 years that marriage must be performed in the church.

    In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.

    I hope it is not history that you teach...
    No one cares about being married in the eyes of God. Same-sex couple want the LEGAL side of marriage, not the religious!! Call it whatever you want, union, marriage, or a steaming pile of crap, federal recognition of the coupling between two people of the same sex is ALL we want. The religious aspect is a whole new ball game.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         
        04-02-2013, 12:40 PM
      #155
    Super Moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bsms    


    Fine. Cite them. Show me the successful societies that encouraged homosexual 'marriages'. Show me the MARRIAGES that successful societies used to endorse homosexual unions.

    Homosexual activity? Absolutely! There are a number of societies that have allowed and even encouraged it to some degree. Homosexual marriage? Odd that even the proponents of homosexual marriage didn't make that claim in the oral arguments.
    "Formal historical data provided by ancient records dealing with male homosexuality in China can be dated back to the Shang Dynasty (c. 16th century - 11th century BC), according to Li Yinhe in her book History of Chinese Homosexuality.

    The term "Luan Feng" was used to describe homosexuality in the "Shang Dynasty Records". Interestingly, there are no record of lesbianism in Chinese history...

    ...After the Han Dynasty, the general attitude was tolerant, so long as homosexuals fulfilled their filial duties by getting married and continuing the family line...

    ...The years 1573-1620 marked the most flourishing period of the Ming Dynasty (1368 - 1644)...Prostitution was a common practice at that time, due to the moral concept which advocated the acceptance of natural sexual needs, an approach promoted by the neo-Confucian philosopher Wang Yangming. Male prostitutes (gigolos) were widely available to meet their clients' specific requirements.

    Confucianism was canonized during the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911), with emphasis put on strict obedience to the social order. That is to say, both wife and husband should always remember their correct relationship, but homosexuals went directly against such rules."
    History of Chinese homosexuality
    You seem to have missed a few examples.....


    Quote:
    In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.
    Quote:
    An example of egalitarian male domestic bonding from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.

    There are numerous examples in Europe and even the Americas. As for when the prohibitions started showing up....

    Quote:
    Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:
    When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.7.3)

    Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian. But, I find it sad that such intolerance seems to have come with the birth of my own religion. Something I am not proud of.
         
        04-02-2013, 12:49 PM
      #156
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SlideStop    
    No one cares about being married in the eyes of God. Same-sex couple want the LEGAL side of marriage, not the religious!! Call it whatever you want, union, marriage, or a steaming pile of crap, federal recognition of the coupling between two people of the same sex is ALL we want. The religious aspect is a whole new ball game.
    Posted via Mobile Device
    If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God.

    IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.

    I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has?

    But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...
         
        04-02-2013, 12:59 PM
      #157
    Banned
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Allison Finch    


    Don't get me wrong, I am a Christian. But, I find it sad that such intolerance seems to have come with the birth of my own religion. Something I am not proud of.
    Just what do you define as intolerance, and why would you include opposition to homosexual marriage as intolerance?

    Denial of rights or discrimination is intolerance. But denying homosexuals marriage, which is a traditional union between a man and a woman is not intolerance - at least to me.

    Is it intolerance to deny NRA membership to a person that is a gun banning activist?

    Is it intolerance to deny a 40 year old membership in AARP, an established organization for older people?

    Is it intolerance to deny participation to an able bodied person in the Special Olympics?

    Homosexuals can obtain whatever rights they are entitled to without intruding on marriage, and I will be first in line to lobby for whatever they choose to name the civil union vehicle to do it with...
         
        04-02-2013, 01:10 PM
      #158
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God.

    IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.

    I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has?

    But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...

    Considering a 50% divorce rate, yeh Id say most people don't care about the church part. Especially all those Catholics lining up for divorces.

    Pesonally I don't see why anyone of any sex would want to get legally married. Just invites lawyers and judges into your house. Who tend to pocket most of your assets.

    There are still people that resent black people living in their neighbor hoods. Public resentment shouldnt be a basis for laws anymore than a particular religious dogma. What people are free to do, or not do should come down to harm or infringing on freedoms of others. I still havent sen a single argument for how Homosexual marriage harms anyone that doesnt like it.
    Allison Finch and BaileyJo like this.
         
        04-02-2013, 01:17 PM
      #159
    Started
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    Is that the world according to RedHorseRidge?
    No, that's the world according to history... you know, that stuff that existed before religion and the catholic church... Did you even read my post?

    Marriage only "recently" (in historical terms) became a holy sacrament. Marriages were being performed long before the church became involved in 13th century. And even after that, many groups rejected the notion of marriage and church being "joined"... even the Puritans passed an act of parliament in the 1700s making marriage purely secular... they believed marriage was a contract between two people which had nothing to do with the church. And believe it or not, there are still people today who don't believe marriage has to be blessed by the church.

    Marriage can be recognized by more than just a religion; it can be recognized by a state, a tribal group, a community, etc. Just because many catholics and other Americans consider marriage a holy union does not make it a religious institution... it may be to them, but that doesn't make it a religious institution by law.

    Marriage in the US is a government institution void of any religious affiliation; one does not have be religious to get married or have a marriage recognized by the state or federal government.

    Quote:
    In addition to Catholics, many other millions of Americans consider marriage a holy union and thus a religious institution.
    Well, yippee skippee for them... that doesn't mean squat in regards to what I posted. Use some logic here Face (I know you have that ability). Civil and religious marriage are NOT the same thing, and our government recognizes civil marriages.... it's just that some of them are performed in a church and also recognized by that religion as a religious marriage.

    Quote:
    I hope it is not history that you teach...
    Snide remarks again? Well, based on your response, I'd sure as heck do a better job than you, as you apparently don't understand there was history before the catholic church.
    Allison Finch likes this.
         
        04-02-2013, 01:19 PM
      #160
    Green Broke
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Faceman    
    If, by "no one', you are talking about the general population, the statement I highlighted is tripe. Do not tell me that no one cares about being married in the eyes of God.

    IF, by "no one", you are referring to homosexuals only, then I accept that...I wouldn't expect a homosexual couple to care much about God or religion to begin with.

    I don't disagree with the latter part. I have said repetitively, as have others, homosexuals should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. And honestly, is there really anyone on here that really disagrees with that, and actually feels homosexuals should be denied the rights everyone else has?

    But the vehicle to accomplish that should not be marriage - it should be a civil union called by whatever name they want to call it. THAT is what should be lobbied for - a civil "institution" recognizing homosexual couples and according them all the appropriate rights and privileges. As I have also previously stated, I suspect there would be little opposition to that by anyone other than a handful of wackos. But trying to incorporate it into marriage is going to elicit a negative response from a sizeable portion of the population - and always will. Furthermore, should homosexuals be accepted into the legal institution of marriage, there will now and always be resentment by many, which appears to me to be counterproductive to achieving a society in which homosexuals are fully accepted...
    Yes, there most certainly are people on this forum who say no.

    By "no one" I ment gay people, sorry I wasn't so clear. We are fighting for federal rights. Not the right, or whatever you want to call it, to be married in the eyes of God. Just for it to be recognized as equal union in the eyes of the government, just like a man and woman. All religion aside.

    As for gay people and religion, you BEST believe there are practicing religious homosexuals. My girlfriend, my best friend and my best friends Aunts (pleural) are all catholic.... and practicing. I'm leaning towards religion also, but I'm not set on it. I doubt any God would judge a happy, productive, faithful person on the account of who they love. People are deeper then their sexuality.

    If same-sex couples what to me married in the eyes of God, well that's a whole 'nother battle. And personally, I don't think I need a ceremony in the "house of God" for God to recognize my marriage. God is all knowing. Same-sex couples just want federal benefits, that's all.
    Posted via Mobile Device
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    Supreme Court upholds health care law kitten_Val General Off Topic Discussion 151 07-04-2012 07:40 PM
    Marriage described through a horse race - Warning, vulgar language!! mliponoga Jokes and Funnies 10 12-21-2010 09:49 PM
    Pre arranged marriage? LOL Heybird Horse Pictures 7 12-21-2009 06:56 PM
    Court Venue rider4life422 Horse Law 5 06-22-2009 06:16 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0