marriage

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

actually, no they haven't

oh, come on Chrys, you can't make a sweeping statement like that and not expect me to call you on it? Defend that with some data.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

I don't get your using "sexualist" as a rational argument,

but then, hey, we are coming from different cultures ourselves. So we can agree to disagree, yes?

Wise words and no doubt well meant: is this then a universal position?
Can we ALL agree to agree to this distinction in good faith?

In genuine hope
BB

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

oh, come on Chrys, you can't make a sweeping statement like that and not expect me to call you on it? Defend that with some data.

the fact that homosexual marriages were not only legal, but encouraged, in such culutures as the romans, the hellenes, and the etruscans shows us this

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

the fact that homosexual marriages were not only legal, but encouraged, in such culutures as the romans, the hellenes, and the etruscans shows us this

According to most scholars, Lacus Curtius and William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.:
among them the following is true of Roman marriage:

"Unless there was connubium there could be no Roman marriage. Connubium is defined by Ulpian (Frag. v.3) to be "uxoris jure ducendae facultas", or the faculty by which a man may make a woman his lawful wife"

There is much more but I don't want to swamp the boards band width.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

I shall quote direct from Suetonius, if i may:

Having tried to turn the boy Sporus into a girl by castration, he [Nero] went through a wedding ceremony with him...

there we are, concrete primary evidence

[Spock]

a: Nero was one person, homosexual by historical records
b: Nero does not equal a societal group
c: faulty logic equals faulty statements

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

picking up the guardian today, what do i read?
yes that's right! one of the first lesbians to legally 'marry' is in fact a vicar!

food for thought

[Spock]

...I could quote Archie Bunker on that but I won't

[inked]

*reference for gay vicar marriage:http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...355078,00.html

I do not know which Archie Bunker-ism you intend, Spock, so enlighten me, at least !

My own "ink-ism" is that nailing the bride in this case has placed another nail in the coffin of the Anglican Communion! But that's whole blogs of material, that is!

*Posting of this data and reference in no way implies an endorsement of this practice as the poster does not believe this partnering constitutes marriage for all the reasons previously outline.*

[Nurvingiel]

Personally, I don't think that tolerance and gay marriages is hurting Anglicanism at all! Rather, I think it strengthens us. Yes, this issue has squarely divided us down the middle (more or less), but sometimes conflict is necessary to advance civil rights, and evolve as a community in a positive direction. I think this is one of those times.
My hope is that the liberal and conservative Anglicans* don't become too divided, there are many people that I like a lot in my church that I still want to be part of the same congregation, even though we don't agree on this issue. (I haven't attended my church in about four years, but that's entirely not the point. )

Just to clarify though, you're not Anglican are you? It's not a big deal, but I think I erroneously stated you were once because you had linked to an article about us or something.


*Naturally, there are divisions within these groups too, but you could make a few large generalizations and divide Anglicans into these two diverse groups.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Wizard from Milan

That can't possibly be because:
1. on one hand marriage existed well before the Jews invented the idea of "one god"
2. on the other hand there is no such thing as "one marriage throughout time and space". Many different institutions have been called marriage

1. but God existed before the Jews "invented" the idea of God ...
(according to what you think is true, obviously)

2. sure, but I hope you would agree that the vast majority have been a man and woman.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

Wise words and no doubt well meant: is this then a universal position?
Can we ALL agree to agree to this distinction in good faith?

Yes, we certainly can! Or at least I do. But I won't give up my vote, either, if things come to a ballot issue. And I think discussion like this (i.e., non-name-calling discussion) is helpful to everyone - it encourages thought and understanding, IMO.

[katya]

Inked, I just wanted you to know, I wrote an essay about how allowing gay marriage destroys our society (just because I thought it'd be easier to argue that way, for various reasons- I don't agree with my own article though and I'm all for gay marriage). Anyway, I used that article you posted back on page 4. So, you know, thank you. It helped me out considerably.^^

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

1. but God existed before the Jews "invented" the idea of God ...
(according to what you think is true, obviously)

Well, we are at a stand still here

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

2. sure, but I hope you would agree that the vast majority have been a man and woman.

You pose an interesting question. I don't know whether the vast majority of marriages has been between a man and a woman or between a man and several women.
Regardless of what is the answer to this question; I don't see how it could help us. Even if we were to find out that most of the institutions that we now call marriages, but were radically different one from the other, had in common to be between a man and woman, that would not be anything more than a historical regularity. Nothing that I think is important (of course there are posters on this forum that regard tradition as important, but I do not; I think that doing the right thing is more important)

[Spock]

"doing the right thing" is subjective and negates the rule of law which is necessary in order for a civilization to survive.

[inked]

Well, here's to another blow to marriage! If it can be shown on the Telly, can Britains be far behind in promoting interspecies marriage? After all, marriage is merely a societal code, right?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...1990%2C00.html

I wish I were jesting, before you ask!

[Butterbeer]

For the Americans to call the brits wacky seems a bit much!
remember Wacko? Not to mention Wacko jacko etc.

I'm suprised you think Marriage is a societal code?

spock "doing the right thing" is subjective and negates the rule of law which is necessary in order for a civilization to survive.

hopefully there is freedom within the law for society to decide what IS the right thing and from there to stipulate what laws are and why.
I would seriously question any rule of law that was so rigid that it couldn't allow any subjective debate merely for fear that it might negate the existing enforced rule of law: that seems readily resonant of Communism or a Dictatorship.

Whilst i agree laws and morals and codes of behaviour ARE essential for civilizatons to define themselves and to function, i would personally shy away from any approach that ruled out any moral or subjective enquiry or self discovery as being potentially dangerous.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

Well, here's to another blow to marriage! If it can be shown on the Telly, can Britains be far behind in promoting interspecies marriage? After all, marriage is merely a societal code, right?

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...1990%2C00.html

I wish I were jesting, before you ask!

and here we have the common mistake of 'removing from context', the point being made was that a documentary, exposing bestiality (i watched it, and all of the cases were actually of americans), was allowed to be shown last year, not that OfCom (the media watchdog) was saying that bestiality should be allowed

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by Spock

"doing the right thing" [...] negates the rule of law ...

There certainly are situations in which the statement is correct, but on the topic of same-sex marriage "the right thing" is to change the law, therefore I am not advocating to break the rule of law


EDIT: made clearer

[Spock]

IYO which is different than societies view.