Marriage has existed long before any modern church. Christianity is a relatively new religion.

No.

Marriage predates the Judeo-Christian religions by centuries, if not millenia, and was mostly a secular socio-political and/or economic affair and institution, rather than a romantic one.

The Church getting involved in marriage is actually a fairly recent trend, I believe.


EDIT: D'Oh!

Skin's too fast for me!

My post is in reply to the post above him!

I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Not only does this post not make any sense, but it's entirely irrelevant.

Whoever first said that phrase should have copyrighted it, they'd have made a fortune!!

On a more serious note:

Its come to my attention that one of the first lesbian couples to get married is now splitting up. This is disgraceful Divorce is a sacred institution that is meant to exist between man and women... allowing homosexuals to get divorced devalues the institution of divorce and makes a mockery of the whole thing!!

God divorced Adam and Lilith, not Madam and lilith!!!

I honestly think that God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Your un-evidenced beliefs notwithstanding, in this forum we actually have discussion and posts consisting only of "lol" and "I know" are typically considered spam.

Should you care to discuss further the relevance of xian beliefs with regard to homosexual marriage, we're all eyes.

Its not right

Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce
same for lesbos

"It's not right" doesn't really say a lot. Why isn't it "right?"

Furthermore, what about those that are unable to reproduce? There are a lot of men and women who simply aren't capable of reproduction. Moreover, what has the need to reproduce to do with whether or not two people who love each other should be afforded the same rights and guarantees that are afforded to a male/female who marry?

Also, I'll have to point out that this is coming full circle in this thread, as all these arguments have already been covered and those against same-sex marriage have flat-out lost the debate. There simply is no logical reason to disallow it. None has been mentioned that wasn't easily refuted.

The worst part of your argument is "supposed to be together," which implies that there is some cosmic plan or destiny. There is no evidence that such "plans" exist or that there is anything in nature that is "supposed" to do anything. Things simply are. Evolution has no plan.

sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!

sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!
Legislation. Serious Business.

If you're going to make an argument for making law, it must cover all ground or else it's just bull**** tyrannical non-sense. So if a senator proposes we completely ban gay-marriage on the fact that they as a couple cannot reproduce, then it must also carry to heterosexual couples not being allowed to marry if one, or both, of them cannot reproduce.

Also, what about couples completely unwilling to have kids? Should they not be married since they won't **** for Jesus' love? To bless the world with more of gods little miracles?

One thing I neglected to mention was that gay couples aren't incapable of reproducing. They just cannot reproduce with each other. They can seek alternative methods of reproduction in the same manner as over 9 million women each year through fertility clinics (in vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood); moreover, they can adopt.

The bigoted arguments against homosexual couples simply don't hold up to scrutiny. It can only boil down to bigotry: you don't like them, therefore they shouldn't seek happiness. The pursuit of happiness is only for those in who are in complete agreement with the bigot.

sure i agree the few men and woman who can't reproduce is the same as the Entire Freaking population of gays and lesbos can't reproduce right. C'mon!

From Wikipedia:

About 15% of all total couples cannot reproduce due to either one or both of the partners being infertile.

4-5% of the total population in America is homosexual.

So pretty much, there are more men and women who cannot reproduce than there are homosexuals.

Plus I can quite happily reproduce outside marriage. The two aren't linked.

Plus a large proportion of married couples use contraception, or one or the other has had "the snip" so they can't have kids anymore, or they are too old to have kids.

So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip. Plus any couples who can't have kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. And once they get over 60 they should have to get divorced since there is no longer a need to be married.

its not right
Yes it is.

So i guess that if marriage is linked to having kids then all sex outside marriage should be illegal. Plus it should be illegal to use contracteption or have the snip.
Hmmm... there are factions in the world that would have absolutely no problem with any of that.

Besides if gays were supposed to be together they would be able to reproduce
same for lesbosThere's more to being together than having kids.

Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope". "We allow gays to marry, then what's next? We've got bigamists and people wanting to marry children and animals now!" Well... So the Heck what? Take the bigamy, beastiality, and child-loving as it comes. It's no reason not to ban homosexual marriage.

Another argument I hear is the "slippery slope".
I got that from several family members. Personally, I think it's a bunch of bull.

Homosexual marriage involves two consenting human adults. Beastiality does not, and there are laws against "child-loving." As for bigamy... don't really care to get into that, let it stay in the little cult-towns, that's fine with me.

But why? What if three consenting adults want to have a loving relationship sanctioned by law? Or four? Why make an arbitrary cutoff at two?

Also, how do you feel about close heterosexual relationships (incest)? What if two consenting first cousins want to get married? Siblings? Parent and offspring?

I'm not saying this decides it one way or the other, but if the "two consenting human adults" is all it takes, there can be other things to consider as well, as there are people out there who wish to be married, but are not legally allowed, (and many who have their physical relationships anyway).

The "slippery slope" is a fallacy yes, but these are valid questions. Saying homosexual marriage would lead to beastiality marriage and necrophilia marriage (and therefore since those things are gross, we shouldn't allow homosexual marriage for fear of the other things happening) is the slippery slope, but those hardly compare to incestous heterosexual relationships (which were once legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, though the degree of closeness allowed varies), child brides (which were legal in many parts of the world and a few places still are, and of course the ages vary), and polygamy/polyandry (again, were legal in many places and still are in some, even in our own country).

What it gets down is to the definition of "marriage." If it's just two consenting adults (two include a pair of homosexual partners of the same gender) then you need to consider these other options, from groups that want to have their relationships legally recognized. Unlike beastiality and necrophilia (and "underage" child brides), many of the same arguments used to approve gay civil unions/homosexual marriage can be used to appeal to the legality of incestous relationships.

Laws, shmaws. Gay marriage isn't legal in most states, and people arguing precisely that, that the laws should be CHANGED. And yes, you have people like NAMBLA (whom most people consider to be disgusting of course) who wish to have age of consent laws not lessened (they are not universal anyway) but REMOVED, so any relationship is allowed. Of course psychologists can argue (rightly I think) that children can't properly give consent to adults, neither can non-human animals give consent to humans, thus those kinds of relationships will inevitably be a type of rape. And if rape is a violation, it should be illegal to protect the innocent.

We have laws against gay marriage (and gay sex, that are slowly being overturned) because it was commonly assumed by American society that marriage was between a man and a woman. The "one man and one woman" thing lead to persecution and threats against the Mormons, a group that sanctioned polygamy, to the point where they were forced to change their beliefs to conform with the laws of those around them (of course various split off groups still practice polygamy in defiance of everyone else, but that gets into the debate of "enforceability" of sex laws and such).

So we have the definition of marriage, the definition of consent, and all that stuff. Marriage has legal benefits and sacred connotations (though there is a secular equivalent, and it's really up to the couple and the community how much religious stock they put into it). But it's an institution. What people are calling for is a radical reform, reorganization or reform of this institution and others are disagreeing how it should be done or if it should be done at all.

Making "same sex civil unions" a new seperate legal institution apart from "marriage" (heterosexuals only) is an interesting issue of course.

Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs

Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them

This post wreaks of bigotry. That's about all there is to it.

I support them although I'm heterosexual. Contrary to some peoples' beliefs, you don't have to be gay to support homosexuality. You only need the conviction that they're not hurting anyone, nor attempting to do so, and you're all set.

Religion's Mythology's thoughts on the matter is completely irrelevant to me. Unless you follow the Bible word-for-word, they should be for you, too (you don't 100% abide by the Holy Book, so how can you make others do?).

Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not

Strange how everyone who bashes gays has to underline at the start that they certainly aren't gay. Hmmm.

I'm not black so i don't support equal rights for black people. ANd assuming your religion is christianity then you shouldn't be allowing women out of the house with their head uncovered either.. or letting them speak in church. but then i'm not christian, so i don't support your right to get married either.

and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs
But what do your beliefs have to do with the lives of non-believers?
Are athiests allowed to get married? Yes. Are muslims allowed to get married? Yes. Why should christian law apply to non-christians?

Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs
Reminds me of the anti-black rights junk back in the 40's-70's.

I remember one of the most popular in regards to interracial marriage had something to do with tying two different colored oxen to the same yoke being bad and blasphemous. Or some other such nonsense.

Basically, religion has no place in affairs of social structure unless in a religious social setting. And as far as I can remember, America isn't to have a nationally established religion, since the idea was it is the land of the free. You can practice your faith without anyone telling you otherwise.

Resectivly speacking are you gay? i'm certainly not so i don't support them and my religion has a lot to do with my beliefs

Come to think of it, most within this thread are heterosexual(myself included). So it's not really that we are homosexuals looking out for ourselves, but just that we just have some rational sense.

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.
That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.
That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.

YUP.

Because burning witches at the stake = MORAL FAMILY VALUES!

yes it does my friend and you agree becuase your avatar is nodding

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.
That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.

In the 1500's:

No democracy or power of the people, very little freedom of religion(around the same time as the protestants, mind you), absolutely horrid levels of health and education. Coincidentily, in the 1500's the Renaissance was in full swing, which focused on classical antiquity such as Rome which was known for it's decadence and yes, homosexuality.

Now, compare this to the modern era:

Unprecedented levels of freedom; health, technology, education, ect. are at all time highs and marvels are created on an annual basis. We, particularly in the democratic societies and not the theocracies, enjoy life much more than any of our ancestors ever did. We're concerned for the well being of even our most embittered enemies, while those from the 1500's would hardly blink at the thought of mass tortures.

If you ask me, I sure do like the "moral decline" of today.

More rhetoric and rant, but still no logical reason to disallow same-sex marriage.

Because it bothers you, is not a valid reason.

this is another reason if you lived back in th 1500 hundreds you would almost never hear of a gay person and if you did you would've been appauled.
That just shows that this generation has been morally declining.That'd imply that homosexuality is wrong. And seeing you haven't convinced me it's wrong, I cannot buy that.

There is a "moral decline" in some areas (how many Americans thought torture was right six years ago? Today, on the other hand, there's a ton of Neo-cons defending America and Israel's right to torture prisoners).

But homoseuxality? Not a sign of moral decline. Moral advancement, if you ask me.

That'd imply that homosexuality is wrong. And seeing you haven't convinced me it's wrong, I cannot buy that.It is not "wrong". Nor is it "right". Once again I feel that it is important to point out that while people should be allowed to place their genitals anywhere they wish, (provided it's with the legal consent of any other relevant parties,) they should not be lauded for doing so. It is not a "good" thing that they wish to engage in rumpy pumpy of a risky, not-intended-by-manufacturer nature. It may not be a very bad thing either, but it is not something to rejoice about.

I do personally believe that there are better ways to spend one's time than campaigning for the right to marry your sports bag, but each to their own. Marriage in general should be outlawed, in particular the secular recognition of marriage. It is a quasi-religious and superstitious tool of state sanctioned financial injustice. BAN IT I SAY!

no offence to halo92, and maybe i'm wring, but he appears to be simply trolling to get a response. Unless he actually puts together a post with any sort of coherent argument, backup for his (brainwashed) opinions or anything else senate worthy, its probably best just to ignore him, or humour him.

It sounds to me like he's a little repressed and afraid to come out because he's been brainwashed into thinking these new urges he feels are wrong..

..though of course maybe he'll prove me wrong with a well thought out, coherent post with rational argments: the stage is yours..

There is alot of outrage on the right regarding homosexual marriage since it was brought to the forefront by activist judges, not the people.

My opposition to same sex marriage is more based on the semantics of 'marriage'.

It's also surprising that the secular left would push for representation in a historicaly religious institution. Why not something new?

I guess I could see someone coming out of the Anglican church with concerns ....

I wonder what happened to the 80's homosexuals who scoffed at marriage as some type of 'breeder' institution?

I'm all for civil unions and equal rights for everyone. Some object to the term 'Civil Unions' and I don't see why the left in all their creativity couldn't come up with a better name.

Frankly the word marriage makes me shiver... but that could be for other reasons. : )

Ah marriage another wonderful sideeffect we have to thank religion for.

To love another person of the same sex is not unatural. To deny oneself to love is unatural. Marriage is unnatural.

This whole debate is unnatural. If a country is a democrazy than it's laws should oblidge to all. Give me a reason why not homosexuals should be able to marry. If the specific religion forbids it than i say **** religion call it whatever you want. Personaly i wouldn't want to be married under a religion that sees me as less worth.

Ah marriage another wonderful sideeffect we have to thank religion for.Actually, I believe marriage pre-dates not only religion, but also ancient mythology.

The evidence that marriage is independent of religion comes two-fold: 1) monogamy is present in many other animals besides humans, including primates, which dedicate their lives to a single mate; 2) marriage is a human construct that exists independent of religions in various societies and is consistently present cross-culturally where religious beliefs vary drastically.

[It sounds to me like he's a little repressed and afraid to come out because he's been brainwashed into thinking these new urges he feels are wrong..And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

The evidence that marriage is independent of religion comes two-fold: 1) monogamy is present in many other animals besides humans, including primates, which dedicate their lives to a single mate; 2) marriage is a human construct that exists independent of religions in various societies and is consistently present cross-culturally where religious beliefs vary drastically.

Ah yes, I meant the whole church, priest, til death do us part thing. Hmm never heard that with primates it's quite extrodinary. Although the whole debate that many conservatives claim is wrong is as i understand it mostly about homo-marriage in christianity. (I believe?)

And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

I'm actually not a liberal or a lefty. I'm more conservative than most people here would think... we just don't seem to discuss socialism vs. capitalism here.

Marriage itself is a strange concept, from a purely religious standpoint.

I can understand why SOCIETIES and GOVERMENTS might want the institution of marriage. It makes societys more stable and predictable. But, if there is a god sat up ther watching all this, why on earth would he give a stuff whether the two people, in love, living happily together, having sex, with kids, went to a church and went through a weird ceremony or not. I can't think of a single reason why he would care either way.

And it's not exactly easy to debate in an enviornment where 99% of the participants are liberals/left-wingers. We badly need more Conservatives in here.

Amen to that.



Is any body for some type of civil union? It's sad that there was a voter backlash against it in some states, that usually happens when you circumvent the people on such matters.

I thought there was a voter backlash because a load of evangelical priest whipped up their congregations to protest against it?

I have no problem with civil marriages for gay people. I just think ALL marriages should be equal and civil.. and then if individuals want to add religious "extras" to their civil marriage, fine.

As long as the legal definitions of the rights afforded by those who are deemed to be "Married" as opposed to being in a "Civil Union" are exactly the same in official State and Federal statutes, then who really cares what you call it?

If a civil union is somehow afforded less rights than their married counterparts though, then it seems to me the state that is encouraging and sanctioning discrimination.
If the state is to support long-term, committed, monogamous relationships with an official sanction of some sort, then can you call it fair to have 2 neighbors living side-by-side with a completely set of rights regarding their relationships just because one household has a matching set of genders instead of a mixed-pair?

However; if a civil union is exactly the same in every way (from the State's point of view legally) then why not call it "Marriage"? Y'Know: if it quacks like a duck...

But if calling it something different makes it an easier sell to the public (kinda like stretching out a the trunk of mid-size sedan, putting a hatchback on it, and naming it a "compact SUV"... instead of it's traditional name, a "station-wagon" or "minivan" just so you can move more of them among the snobbish soccer-mom set) then go for it!

But seems like a silly use of semantics to me...

Hey, Sorry to pop in but I just wanted to comment on one of Saberist's comment.
According to Christianity, it's exactly right that gays burn in hell.

Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.

The Christian would argue that despite what problems we may be born with, we always have the choice of what to do with them. So they would say God wouldn't send them to hell for BEING gay, only for having gay sex (which they chose to do), which is sinful.

Not all Christians believe that being gay is a "lifestyle choice," but most would agree that doing the nasty with somebody is something you do in fact choose, just like taking a drink or getting behind the wheel. Being addicted to something or poorly informed may lessen your responsibility, but not eliminate it.

Of course some (very liberal) Christians would say that gay sex is not sinful at all... and sexual sins, if they even exist, are limited to anything non-consensual (which would include with non-human animals and children) and possibly incest.

Hey, Sorry to pop in but I just wanted to comment on one of Saberist's comment.


Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.
My point exactly, han sala!

...even though I haven't posted before on this thread... :p

Adding on to that, if homoosexuality = bad, I present this query:

If being gay is so evil, then why did God create it? We certainly didn't, because, as has been said, love in any form is a part of nature.

Well, are all sexual desires natural and normal though? Some people are seemingly born with an attraction to pre-pubescent children. Others have a desire to rape people or harm them or be harmed (sado-masochism). Others absolutely hate everything to do with sex. Some like to have lots and lots of partners with no attachments.

Do we privilege those too just because they seem to be something people are born with (or develope early on)?

So saying that homosexuality must be good simply because it is "natural" does not follow (the opposite of the also invalid argument that homosexuality is wrong BECAUSE it is "unnatural").

^Whether it is natural or unnatural it is their choice and we should respect it. It is not going to help if we argue about if it is right or wrong.
We should just worry about ourselves, and worry less about those around us.
If people chose to partake in gay sex let them do it. Don't worry about the sexual orientation of your coworkers, or friends and family. If they are a good person and does good to the community that should be all that matters.
If a Homosexual person gets married it should not affect us if they choose to do so.
What is marriage anyway these days?
Most straight couples get married, and divorce in a matter of time anyways!

If being gay is so evil, then why did God create it? We certainly didn't, because, as has been said, love in any form is a part of nature.

Of course man created gay sex amongst their own species. To say otherwise is rediculous. Are you actually implying that God created gay sex? Oh...so that's where he went on the seventh day. Also, what does love being a part of nature, and man not creating gay sex have to do with one another or the price of tea in China?

Homosexuals are born, or developed at a young age the feeling of being sexually attracted of their own sex. If god does exist, and he indeed made all of us then it would be very hypocritical and morally wrong for him to create a Man or Woman that was gay, and send them to hell for being gay.

I don't think God sat around and decided one day "You know, I hate homosexuality after all, and I feel like making Joe Gay-guy burn in Hell. Only married people and singles who didn't screw around can get through the pearly gates."

When you look at a number of the rules in the Bible (and I imagine in other religious texts) about marriage/sex, there's usually some better reason than 'God just decided to arbitrarily hate gays today'. I'm going to look at the health ramifications. And bear with me....

I'll give you the "Jae's entered teaching History of Medicine mode" warning, and believe me, I'm keeping it brief....
There's some debate about _the_ first antibiotic, but Penicillin is usually considered the first to come into widespread use. It was 'discovered' in 1929 and didn't come into widespread use until 1942 (http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2001/projects/02/antibiotics.htm).
Anesthesia for surgery didn't happen until 1846 (http://www.anes.uab.edu/aneshist/anesnet.htm) when ether was used for the first time during a surgical procedure.
Pasteur didn't develop the germ theory of disease til 1865 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Pasteur)
Antiseptic technique in surgery wasn't discovered until 1867 by Lister (http://web.ukonline.co.uk/b.gardner/Lister.html)
DNA fingerprinting was first used only in 1989 (http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1994/geneticstln.html).
Some current stats from the WHO (http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/indunder5mortality/en/index.html) show that developed regions of the world have lower infant mortality rates.

I'm saying all that because modern medicine and surgery didn't really come into being until the last 150 years. The oldest antibiotics are only about 70 years old. DNA testing for paternity is only 17 years old. Infant mortality drops as wealth increases.

OK, what's the point?
Mind you, I'm speaking entirely in generalities. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some scholarly articles on this subject that are likely more articulate and better researched, but I just haven't looked around for them at this point.

In a pre-modern medicine society (which was most of history until the last 100 years or so), monogamous relations in a married setting were less likely to cause/spread STDs, which couldn't be successfully treated until antibiotics were invented. Single mothers are more likely to be impoverished both then and now, and poverty increases infant mortality. So, being married may have helped enhance both child and maternal survival. Currently in undeveloped countries, infant/early child mortality rates approach 16% of live births, I would be surprised if it was much lower in the pre-modern medicine world, because without anesthesia and c-sections for complicated births, and various medications and prenatal/antenatal/postnatal care, women and babies died in childbirth a lot more often than they do today.
Anal intercourse carries some health risks (http://health.ivillage.com/sexualhealth/sxsafe/0,,6d85,00.html) that other types of relations don't have (Medline will probably have more technical details). The risk of problems may be low, but since bacterial infections could kill much more frequently prior to anti-infectives, it was probably more significant a risk then we would recognize now. The prohibition against gay relations may have resulted from this, in addition to the fact that they don't produce children.
Inbreeding increases risks of some genetic conditions, and child sexual abuse has psychological and physical effects (http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic369.htm). Sexual abuse of younger children can cause enough internal damage to cause infertility, infection, and death, though death is very rare in modern times. Taboos on incest likely developed because of this.
Without DNA testing, there was no good way to ensure paternity--a monogamous relationship ensures that.
This isn't even addressing some of the health benefits from marriage and the advantages for children of being in a 2-parent household--that'd make this a lot longer....

Religious taboos weren't necessarily put in place for arbitrary reasons to cramp someone's fun. There may be legitimate medical, scientific, and psychological reasons for the prohibitions. We're just starting to learn in the medical/scientific realm why some of those laws/rules were put into place. I don't think we've fully explored some of those aspects completely enough to just toss them out the window because they happen to have the tag of 'religion' attached to them.

And I'm not making a diatribe against gay unions/nom du jour--we should just make sure to study any potential consequences/benefits carefully. Just like we should with marriage, too, for that matter.

And I've rambled long enough....

Technically, marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Should homsexuals be allowed to live together and do what straight couples should do? Yes. Should they be allowed a ceremony that states their union? Yes. Should it be called marriage? No, since technically it isn't.