NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage

HARTFORD, Conn. - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples


This is excellent. It's good to see this kind of progress in such dark times.

So, how long until God hits them with a meteor?

WOW! Just... WOW!

I think we got hit by our meteor like 18 months after the fact.

Wow, that's really interesting. I remember when CT passed a bill granting same sex civil unions, but that law specifically defined marriage as one man one woman.

I guess they had hoped to stop this kind of thing from happening, by hoping the courts would find same sex civil unions as "good enough", like New Jersey did.

Didn't work I guess.

Good news. Tolerance and progress are on the march! Or...wading slowly through treacle but getting there eventually, maybe.

Yay!

I worry though that this may be an "October Surprise" for Obama. Conservatives love to use the gay marriage scare to rally support.

I worry though that this may be an "October Surprise" for Obama. Conservatives love to use the gay marriage scare to rally support.

Damn, didn't think of that. Well, you just pissed all over my bonfire:(

I worry though that this may be an "October Surprise" for Obama. Conservatives love to use the gay marriage scare to rally support.I would not be the least bit surprised to see McCain, or most especially Palin, start talking about the Scary Gays now. I would also not be surprised to see that fail miserably, as people ask "WTF are you talking about that for, when the economy is tanking?" just like they have with the Ayers nonsense.

Woo! *humps home state*


*wipes tear away* they grow up so fast...


also, I have to say, even though I dislike that Rell doesn't agree with this move, I do respect her for not wanting to challenge this. New England Republicans still exist in CT, and, while I don't love all of them, I am glad they aren't their Southern counterparts.

Damn, didn't think of that. Well, you just pissed all over my bonfire:(

I don't think it will have much of an effect, as pointed out, america has more things to worry about.

I would not be the least bit surprised to see McCain, or most especially Palin, start talking about the Scary Gays now. I would also not be surprised to see that fail miserably, as people ask "WTF are you talking about that for, when the economy is tanking?" just like they have with the Ayers nonsense.

I have to agree. I think the voters have shown that there isn't a bell or whistle out there that is going to distract them from economic issues.

I would not be the least bit surprised to see McCain, or most especially Palin, start talking about the Scary Gays now. I would also not be surprised to see that fail miserably, as people ask "WTF are you talking about that for, when the economy is tanking?" just like they have with the Ayers nonsense.

I have to agree. I think the voters have shown that there isn't a bell or whistle out there that is going to distract them from economic issues.

Not to mention Obama is lightning quick to respond to McCain's accusations and level his own at his Republican opponent.

Somehow, I have a feeling we're going to hear some version of the same mantra we did in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."

Not to mention Obama is lightning quick to respond to McCain's accusations and level his own at his Republican opponent.

Somehow, I have a feeling we're going to hear some version of the same mantra we did in 1992: "It's the economy, stupid."

and let's not forget who won in 1992.

So, how long until God hits them with a meteor?
The classic proof that God actually smites the fundies (http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=560557) instead! All backed up with statistics and everything...

Now who here wants Kansas to legalize it next? Just to see the Westborough Batshit Church go up in a holy firestorm?

Awesome! Good on them!

Yay equality :)

Good news. Tolerance and progress are on the march! Or...wading slowly through treacle but getting there eventually, maybe.
I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

Translation: Your intolerant because you dont tolerate my bigotry!

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.
OF COURSE I will "tolerate" you. I would be opposed to laws allowing you to be fired (assuming you are competent in your job), or evicted from your apartment (assuming you are paying the rent), for your views. And I will allow you to enter into any relationship you choose, and of course allow you to refuse to enter into any sexual relationship with a member of the same gender if that is not attractive to you.

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

I'm sure pro gay marriage people tolerate people with different views when those views aren't hurtful to the community as a whole. There's no reason to be tolerant of bigots, but there is reason to be tolerant of people that are different races/sexual orientations...


Translation: Your intolerant because you dont tolerate my bigotry!


QFT

OF COURSE I will "tolerate" you. I would be opposed to laws allowing you to be fired (assuming you are competent in your job), or evicted from your apartment (assuming you are paying the rent), for your views. And I will allow you to enter into any relationship you choose, and of course allow you to refuse to enter into any sexual relationship with a member of the same gender if that is not attractive to you.

Nononono, it's intolerant to say that I'm intolerant and to try to make sure that the law doesn't reflect my bigotry!

Just like Brown v. Board was the most racist decision in the history of the Supreme court. *nod*

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

You confuse tolerance and acceptance. One can tolerate other people having the view that gay marriage should not be allowed without accepting their viewpoint.

This is precisely why I'm an antifederalist. If such laws were decided at the Federal level same sex marriage would be illegal everywhere.

OF COURSE I will "tolerate" you. I would be opposed to laws allowing you to be fired (assuming you are competent in your job), or evicted from your apartment (assuming you are paying the rent), for your views. And I will allow you to enter into any relationship you choose, and of course allow you to refuse to enter into any sexual relationship with a member of the same gender if that is not attractive to you.



I wonder if anyone has ever been beaten to death for not being gay...

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

I tolerate them just fine. As in, I don't kill them, and believe that they can hold their opinions.

I look down upon them, however. But then, that's my prejudice...I tend to look down upon bigots.

This is precisely why I'm an antifederalist. If such laws were decided at the Federal level same sex marriage would be illegal everywhere.

On the other hand, segregation would probably still be legal in some places without a federal mandate, so... it can go both ways.

I tolerate them just fine. As in, I don't kill them, and believe that they can hold their opinions.

I look down upon them, however. But then, that's my prejudice...I tend to look down upon bigots.

You monster! Don't you know how hard it is to be a bigot in modern society?! We have to endure being in the same place as black people. :eek:

I tend to look down upon bigots.

Why do you hate freedom?

Man my state is always behind. I need to find someone willing to get gay married here so it can go to the Supreme Court.

You monster! Don't you know how hard it is to be a bigot in modern society?! We have to endure being in the same place as black people. :eek:
I know...I know. I'm a horrible person...I just can't seem to bring myself to accept people who think those people are equal.

Why do you hate freedom?

Because I'm a dirty educated liberal New England elitist?

You know I think Gay civil unions are all cool. I don't understand the average Christian argument against it. I am a devout Protestant Christian and I think civil union is fine and dandy.
"Why, but your a Christian how could you possibly be for this sort of thing?!"
Well you see I am a Christian who also *gasp* reads his bible. In the Old Testament God smote the world because of mans immoralities. That is to say because of all sin, not exclusively homosexuality. What most Christians don't understand and what almost all non-Christians don't get is that Jesus told us NOT to pass judgement on anyone. He dose say, however, that fellow Christians are to keep each other accountable for their actions. If one Christian dose something that they shouldn't be we are to call them out on it. Paul dose it many times to not only the people he taught but to the other apostles. If he saw something going wrong he'd chew them out hardcore.
What Jesus also says is that we cannot hold those who are not Christians to the same level as we hold each other. That is to say that we are to judge one another as brothers and sisters, but we are not to judge non-Christians on anywhere near the same level as we judge each other. Christians cannot expect someone who is not Christian to follow what Jesus taught. Yes we are called to teach what he came to tell us but we cannot force someone to believe and if they don't, well that is what God gave free will for.
So my argument here is to say, If they want to get a civil union thats cool they should go do that. Although it is hypocrisy to have their union in a church, that is something that just doesn't match up. As Christians we are not to judge them but that dose NOT mean to support it. They can do it all they want, just not in the guise that it is under Gods will. Homosexuality is not a part of Gods will. That is simply Biblical. For Christians to judge non-Christian Homosexuals is not.
As I have said before, just because we are not to judge them dose not mean that we are to support it.

SO to sum it up into really simple terms.
Homosexual civil unions are cool. I got no beef with that.
Homosexual marriages ordained by the church, not cool, nor Biblical.

Anyway thats my opinion. If I have interested you then pm me and I'll tell you more about what I think. If there is a flaw in my thinking or understanding of Biblical text then please call me out on it. That is what being a Christian is all about.

If we're going down this road, someone may as well mention that Nazi rally in that heavily Jewish town in Illinois from a while back.

That being said, hat's off to Connecticut.

Marriages can be done in a secular setting, man.

Homosexual marriages ordained by the church, not cool, nor Biblical.I didn't realize that Nonchristians aren't allowed to get married.

If you look at it any marriage between two non-Christians isn't Biblical. That isn't to say they cannot become Christians later or something. What most people don't know is that even though they say they are Christian they don't actually know what they believe in.
Homosexuals can become Christian, there's nothing saying they can't, but you cannot be a Christian and still be married to others of the same sex.

Once again if anyone sees flaws in my understanding of the Bible then please call me out on it.

I wonder if anyone has ever been beaten to death for not being gay...
I don't believe so, but I do know of a case of someone fired for not being gay: it was a theater troupe, and this guy just "didn't fit in", you know... The New York courts ruled that, since the legislature had just rejected a statute that would have barred employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, this was perfectly legal, cuts both ways, see? (I believe New York has since enacted non-discrimination legislation.)

What most Christians don't understand and what almost all non-Christians don't get is that Jesus told us NOT to pass judgement on anyone.

No, no. We get it. We know that Jesus says not to pass judgement. The fact of the matter is that many Christians do pass judgement. It doesn't matter what Jesus said or did if it is ignored by the vast majority of those who worship him.

Man my state is always behind. I need to find someone willing to get gay married here so it can go to the Supreme Court.
I'd do you... er, marry you!

If you look at it any marriage between two non-Christians isn't Biblical. That isn't to say they cannot become Christians later or something. What most people don't know is that even though they say they are Christian they don't actually know what they believe in.
Homosexuals can become Christian, there's nothing saying they can't, but you cannot be a Christian and still be married to others of the same sex.

Once again if anyone sees flaws in my understanding of the Bible then please call me out on it.

Your Bible understanding can be flawed or flawless and it won't matter. The fact is that the Constitution, not the Bible, is the supreme law in the United States, so anything the Bible has to say about the status of marriage is irrelevant. It's not up to the Bible to decide whether homosexual marriage is okay or not.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage




This is excellent. It's good to see this kind of progress in such dark times.

So, how long until God hits them with a meteor?

until the Fundies learn how to make a meteor fall out of the sky. Given that level of technology would mean accepting a belief in evolution. So maybe never.

If you look at it any marriage between two non-Christians isn't Biblical. That isn't to say they cannot become Christians later or something. What most people don't know is that even though they say they are Christian they don't actually know what they believe in.
Homosexuals can become Christian, there's nothing saying they can't, but you cannot be a Christian and still be married to others of the same sex.

Once again if anyone sees flaws in my understanding of the Bible then please call me out on it.

Can you source your claims please?

Marriage is not exclusive to religion and in fact was first a social institution before religions co-opted it.

http://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml

It's fine that religious people get married too though. I don't mind. I don't even care if they do it in a courthouse instead of a church.


I don't see wht is hypocritical about a gay person believeing that the bond between themselves and their significcant other is spiritual and therefore something that they would like to be done in a church if they are religious.

You may have a different interpretation of the bible than they do. That's what it would be right? A difference of interpretations? Or do you have some sort of insight into the bible that makes your interpretation the last word?

Of course I believe that churches that don't want to perform gay marriages should have that right but luckily there are churches that will do so and that makes them better people in my eyes.

:)

Only forty-seven more to go!

Homosexual marriages ordained by the church, not cool, nor Biblical.

Of course, we're talking about civil marriage... so that's immaterial.

:)

Only forty-seven more to go!

Every time I read about these things I get depressed that IL hasnt done this yet.


And we probably wont anytime soon.


*mutters*fucking Dupage County*mutters*

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

OF COURSE I will "tolerate" you. I would be opposed to laws allowing you to be fired (assuming you are competent in your job), or evicted from your apartment (assuming you are paying the rent), for your views. And I will allow you to enter into any relationship you choose, and of course allow you to refuse to enter into any sexual relationship with a member of the same gender if that is not attractive to you.

I won't, however, refrain from saying that you (the hypothetical you who takes this position, not Wowmaui who claims to be neutral) take a bigoted and indefensible position.

BTW, Wowmaui why did you abandon your thread on the prop 8 ad?

That is true. Because (whether you know it or not) the united states is not a Christian nation. So yes you are correct in saying the Constitution is the supreme law.
Also any marriage done by the state is a civil union. No matter what term you use. Marriage or Civil Union are the same thing to the state. As far as marrying in a church that is a union between a man and a woman only and is not a Civil Union but a Sacred Union. That is why when non-Christians marry in a church it is not Biblical. It is more done out of tradition than anything in these times. Nowadays secular marriage is glorified dating nothing more.
So when you say the Bible has no say in whether or not gay marriage is ok or not your actual meaning is that it has no say in civil unions, which is true. But the Bible dose have say in whether or not a union is sacred or not.
Many people may not care if their union is civil or sacred and well God gave us free will so your entitled to that opinion.

That is true. Because (whether you know it or not) the united states is not a Christian nation. So yes you are correct in saying the Constitution is the supreme law.
Also any marriage done by the state is a civil union. No matter what term you use. Marriage or Civil Union are the same thing to the state. As far as marrying in a church that is a union between a man and a woman only and is not a Civil Union but a Sacred Union. That is why when non-Christians marry in a church it is not Biblical. It is more done out of tradition than anything in these times. Nowadays secular marriage is glorified dating nothing more.
So when you say the Bible has no say in whether or not gay marriage is ok or not your actual meaning is that it has no say in civil unions, which is true. But the Bible dose have say in whether or not a union is sacred or not.
Many people may not care if their union is civil or sacred and well God gave us free will so your entitled to that opinion.

You're right, the Church has every right to decide who it will and will not marry according to the tenets of the church. Regardless of the Church's position, however, the State has no compelling reason not to afford homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

Marriages can be done in a secular setting, man.

Or non-Christian churches.

That is true. Because (whether you know it or not) the united states is not a Christian nation. So yes you are correct in saying the Constitution is the supreme law.
Also any marriage done by the state is a civil union. No matter what term you use. Marriage or Civil Union are the same thing to the state. As far as marrying in a church that is a union between a man and a woman only and is not a Civil Union but a Sacred Union. That is why when non-Christians marry in a church it is not Biblical. It is more done out of tradition than anything in these times. Nowadays secular marriage is glorified dating nothing more.
So when you say the Bible has no say in whether or not gay marriage is ok or not your actual meaning is that it has no say in civil unions, which is true. But the Bible dose have say in whether or not a union is sacred or not.
Many people may not care if their union is civil or sacred and well God gave us free will so your entitled to that opinion.

So if two gay men or women feel that their marital bond is sacred, they are mistaken because you say so? My wife and I feel that we have a strong spiritual bond but are not Christian (or any other religion although we are spiritual *mindblowing huh?*). Are we just kidding ourselves?

Or non-Christian churches.

Or Christian churches that decide to interpret the bible in a different manor

Sdaeriji that is what I have been saying the whole time I am grateful that you understand.

Sumamba Buwhan I know this is offensive and you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. You have that right and I cannot argue with you but my answer is yes you are kidding yourselves. Now that is my opinion I am only working off of my understanding of Biblical text.

Also my source is the New Testament.

Also any marriage done by the state is a civil union. No matter what term you use. Marriage or Civil Union are the same thing to the state. As far as marrying in a church that is a union between a man and a woman only and is not a Civil Union but a Sacred Union. That is why when non-Christians marry in a church it is not Biblical. It is more done out of tradition than anything in these times. Nowadays secular marriage is glorified dating nothing more.
So when you say the Bible has no say in whether or not gay marriage is ok or not your actual meaning is that it has no say in civil unions, which is true. But the Bible dose have say in whether or not a union is sacred or not.
Many people may not care if their union is civil or sacred and well God gave us free will so your entitled to that opinion.
No, actually, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruling specifically says that "civil union" and "marriage" are not the same thing. Connecticut had full rights civil unions, and that is the law that was struck down.

When we say marriage, we mean marriage. With all the rights and responsibilites that go with it.

The Bible means nothing. I am the authority here, and I say gay marriages are just as sacred as straight ones.

Then I will clarify my self by saying Sacred Marriage rather than what the secular culture has made of the word marriage. Does that clear things up?

Then I will clarify my self by saying Sacred Marriage rather than what the secular culture has made of the word marriage. Does that clear things up?

Again, since I am the authority here, it stands to reason that my definition of marriage is the only right one. And mine is: Marriage is the union between adults who love each other.

Yay! Hooray for tolerance!

Again, since I am the authority here, it stands to reason that my definition of marriage is the only right one. And mine is: Marriage is the union between adults who love each other.What does that make the various events that may or may not occur at frat houses?

What does that make the various events that may or may not occur at frat houses?

Yes.

>.>

Then I will clarify my self by saying Sacred Marriage rather than what the secular culture has made of the word marriage. Does that clear things up?

if you mean a Christian sacred marriage, sure. And even then, it only applies to Christian churches that happen to agree with you. There are Christian churches that do permit gay marriages, basing that decision off various Biblical backing.

Marriage has been around since long before the Christian church, or the Jewish church, or any of todays religions. Secular culture has done nothing to change the definition of marriage...it has always and will always be, first and foremost, a legal contract.

Heikoku I understand the message you are trying to put across. My intention was not to have a holier than thou stance. My argument was not against gay civil union or secular marriage if thats what you want to call it. I was not trying to put myself out there as some kind of authority on the matter nor do I claim to be. That is why I would say at the end of my posts whether my understanding was flawed at all from Biblical stand point. I understand that not everyone comes from that stand point and they are entitled.
I am not an authority. I am a Christian with an opinion yes. And I wasn't trying to turn this into a bash the non believer flamefest either. I am mere voicing my understanding of Jesus teaching according to the Bible.

Heikoku I understand the message you are trying to put across. My intention was not to have a holier than thou stance. My argument was not against gay civil union or secular marriage if thats what you want to call it. I was not trying to put myself out there as some kind of authority on the matter nor do I claim to be. That is why I would say at the end of my posts whether my understanding was flawed at all from Biblical stand point. I understand that not everyone comes from that stand point and they are entitled.
I am not an authority. I am a Christian with an opinion yes. And I wasn't trying to turn this into a bash the non believer flamefest either. I am mere voicing my understanding of Jesus teaching according to the Bible.

My respect for you just grew a notch.

At any rate, biblically speaking, there are, as you know, interpretations that allow for gay marriage. Even within the Christian faith it's up to you to choose what to believe; however bear in mind that God is good. Ergo, He would like to see two people who love each other happy.

Sdaeriji that is what I have been saying the whole time I am grateful that you understand.

Sumamba Buwhan I know this is offensive and you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. You have that right and I cannot argue with you but my answer is yes you are kidding yourselves. Now that is my opinion I am only working off of my understanding of Biblical text.

Also my source is the New Testament.


I just asked God if you even talk to her and she said no, and that you have fundamental misunderstandings about true spirituality. I'm sorry to break it to you. It's only Gods opinion, anyway.

Your source is pretty vague (you seriously can't narrow it down?) and irrelevant, btw. The New and Old Testaments are written by humans as a means to control other humans. God told me so. You don't get a better authority than that. Don't believe me, ask her yourself. She said she'd be waiting for your call.

Sdaeriji that is what I have been saying the whole time I am grateful that you understand.

Sumamba Buwhan I know this is offensive and you don't have to believe me if you don't want to. You have that right and I cannot argue with you but my answer is yes you are kidding yourselves. Now that is my opinion I am only working off of my understanding of Biblical text.

Also my source is the New Testament.

No - you are working off your MISunderstanding of the Biblical text.

People like you, are the reason I'm licensed to perform marriage ceremonies, just in case Georgia joins the list of states that allow gay marriages.

Liusintia, in Biblical times "marriage" simply meant "a sexual relationship that is publicly acknowledged, and creates an exclusive right on the part of the male." A sexual relationship that was kept secret was a "whoredom"; and if a wife had sex with another man that was "adultery"; but if the man (openly) had sex with another woman, that was just a second "marriage" for him. There was no requirement for any exchange of vows, or any other kind of ceremony: see the last chapter of Judges, where it is quite explicit that "marriage by capture" is still "marriage"; if you stick it in her, she's yours, that was the rule.

Then I will clarify my self by saying Sacred Marriage rather than what the secular culture has made of the word marriage. Does that clear things up?

'Secular' marriage existed before the Bible was written, my friend...

That would be assuming a lot. First that God has the same definition of love and second that God has the same definition of Good. I am not saying your wrong in that assumption I am saying God Has a much higher understanding of things than we do. We literally cannot comprehend what he is thinking because he is not a corporeal being. He dose not exist as a physical thing He dose not think the same way we do because we are bound to our physical bodies and cannot help but to know anything else than that which is physical.
In Christian theology the only way we know anything of the non corporeal is through Gods teachings. And yes it is interpretable in many ways, but you have to look at it in context. Look at the whole not at a chunk and the argument is there in full.

Then I will clarify my self by saying Sacred Marriage rather than what the secular culture has made of the word marriage. Does that clear things up?

My marriage is quite sacred. As a matter of fact, given the number of gods involved I could argue that it's MORE sacred than a Christian marriage.

My marriage is quite sacred. As a matter of fact, given the number of gods involved I could argue that it's MORE sacred than a Christian marriage.

If there is a sexy goddess, would you hand me her number? ;)

Yes in the Old Covenant that was true. You have to remember that Jesus came to change the old things into the new. That is why Christians talk about a New Covenant with God.

Hm. As a Connecticutian, this means two things to me:

1) Lots more Liberals in the state. Cuz we totally need more of a leftward slant.

2) More awkward moments on the sidewalk.

Honestly, I'm very surprised. We have a Republican governor and those weird people out in the Northeast part of CT aren't exactly very...open. There's more liberals out there, but they aren't CA liberals, they're much less socially open.

Yes in the Old Covenant that was true. You have to remember that Jesus came to change the old things into the new. That is why Christians talk about a New Covenant with God.

And the fundamental message of Jesus' ministry was love - love for your god, and love for your neighbour. Read your beatitudes, and show me where hate or intolerance is preached. Read about Jesus with the publicans and the lepers, and show me the intolerance.

That would be assuming a lot. First that God has the same definition of love and second that God has the same definition of Good. I am not saying your wrong in that assumption I am saying God Has a much higher understanding of things than we do. We literally cannot comprehend what he is thinking because he is not a corporeal being. He dose not exist as a physical thing He dose not think the same way we do because we are bound to our physical bodies and cannot help but to know anything else than that which is physical.
In Christian theology the only way we know anything of the non corporeal is through Gods teachings. And yes it is interpretable in many ways, but you have to look at it in context. Look at the whole not at a chunk and the argument is there in full.

Should hermaphrodites refrain from marriage?

Where did Jesus mention marriage?

And the fundamental message of Jesus' ministry was love - love for your god, and love for your neighbour. Read your beatitudes, and show me where hate or intolerance is preached. Read about Jesus with the publicans and the lepers, and show me the intolerance.
The apocalypse is coming GnI...

I just agreed with you.:eek2:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage




This is excellent. It's good to see this kind of progress in such dark times.

So, how long until God hits them with a meteor?

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf) (note: 85 page pdf)

I'm looking over the decision now and may get back to y'all with some quotes.

EDIT: From the introduction/summary of the opinion:

We conclude that, in light
of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by
gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of
marriage carries with it a status and significance that
the newly created classification of civil unions does not
embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual
couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable
harm. We also conclude that (1) our state
scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated
on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes
of the equal protection provisions of the United States
constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect
classification for purposes of the equal protection
provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject
to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)
the state has failed to provide sufficient justification
for excluding same sex couples from the institution of
marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s
disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally
deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny,
we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a
stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation
is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In
accordance with our conclusion that the statutory
scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons
on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with
direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.

If there is a sexy goddess, would you hand me her number? ;)

Try reaching Eris through your pineal gland. Talk about La Vida Loca . . .

Where did Jesus mention marriage?

He mentioned indirectly, quoting Genesis, when he was discussing divorce.

Of course, he also said that anyone who was capable of doing such a thing to themselves, should castrate themselves...

I haven't said a thing about intolerance in here first off and second Jesus was not a tolerant fellow look at the rich young man or every time he would be challenged by a pharisee he would snap back at them. And the time when he cleared the temple when the people had turned into a marketplace of sorts. Jesus' teachings were of love yes but I don't see where he is teaching tolerance. At least not the modern meaning of the word.

I wonder if you will tolerate the people who disagree with the court's decision and argue that gay marriage should not be allowed.

Personally, I could care less either way (well, actually I kinda do favor it for the selfish reason of it opens the door to a whole new group of divorce clients who'll get charged $250.00/hour).

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

*doesn't know whether to laugh or cry*

I assume you get equally upset about the lack of tolerance of those who oppose inter-racial marriage?

This is precisely why I'm an antifederalist. If such laws were decided at the Federal level same sex marriage would be illegal everywhere.

Um. Is there some typo in your statement? I sure hope there is.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf)

I'm looking over the decision now and may get back to y'all with some quotes.

I don't have the time or inclination to read over 80 pages of legalese, so can anyone tell me WTF the Commissioner of Public Health has to do with marriage, gay or otherwise?

I don't have the time or inclination to read over 80 pages of legalese, so can anyone tell me WTF the Commissioner of Public Health has to do with marriage, gay or otherwise?

I'm not sure, but I believe the Commissioner has ultimate oversight over the issuance of marriage licenses.

The apocalypse is coming GnI...

I just agreed with you.:eek2:

It's okay to agree with me occassionally. :)

Just don't make a habit of it or people will start talking...

2) More awkward moments on the sidewalk.


Poor homophobes now have to acknowledge that them queers exist.


I feel so much sympathy for you.

I haven't said a thing about intolerance in here first off and second Jesus was not a tolerant fellow look at the rich young man or every time he would be challenged by a pharisee he would snap back at them. And the time when he cleared the temple when the people had turned into a marketplace of sorts. Jesus' teachings were of love yes but I don't see where he is teaching tolerance. At least not the modern meaning of the word.

I think, perhaps, you are misusing the word tolerance. What is 'judge not...' except tolerance? What is 'love thy neighbour as thyself' except tolerance?

I think - perhaps - you are confusing what Jesus was accounted able to do, with what he preached.

The central tenent of the New Testament is love. If your reading of it limits what others are allowed to do, you didn't understand the text. And before you start picking out phrases that you can argue could be law - Jesus preached against EXACTLY that 'letter of the law' mentality in the Pharisees, and taught a 'spirit of the law' accounting.

Poor homophobes now have to acknowledge that them queers exist.

I feel so much sympathy for you.

Maybe that's not what he means? Maybe he means that the sight of men holding hands gives him a boner. That could be awkward....

They're the people who issue marriage licenses. And the party you sue when they refuse to issue you one because you're both men.

Poor homophobes now have to acknowledge that them queers exist.


I feel so much sympathy for you.

Thank you, it helps.

On a more serious note, I don't appreciate being called a homophobe. Regardless of what I think about gay marriage, PDA's in the middle of the street are still a bit awkward, even with heterosexual couples.

I haven't said a thing about intolerance in here first off and second Jesus was not a tolerant fellow look at the rich young man or every time he would be challenged by a pharisee he would snap back at them. And the time when he cleared the temple when the people had turned into a marketplace of sorts. Jesus' teachings were of love yes but I don't see where he is teaching tolerance. At least not the modern meaning of the word.

"Love one another as I have loved you" + "Judge not lest ye be judged" + Good Samaritan parable = Jesus liked tolerance, in my opinion.

Like I said at the end of my post I am talking about the modern and most used term Tolerance. Tolerance is used today as a word for "Accept everything. Every one is right. no one is wrong. Were all entitled to our own opinions and no one can tell us were wrong."
That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

:rolleyes:


Why?

"Love one another as I have loved you" + "Judge not lest ye be judged" + Good Samaritan parable = Jesus liked tolerance, in my opinion.

Don't forget "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

Knock down that straw man!

Like I said at the end of my post I am talking about the modern and most used term Tolerance. Tolerance is used today as a word for "Accept everything. Every one is right. no one is wrong. Were all entitled to our own opinions and no one can tell us were wrong."
That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

It's that very tolerance, practiced as policy on this site, that allows you to freely voice your minority position on this forum.

Regardless of what I think about gay marriage, PDA's in the middle of the street are still a bit awkward, even with heterosexual couples.

If your objection is to "public displays of affection" as such, what does same-sex marriage have to do with it?

If your objection is to "public displays of affection" as such, what does same-sex marriage have to do with it?

Because when queers do it its icky.

Like I said at the end of my post I am talking about the modern and most used term Tolerance. Tolerance is used today as a word for "Accept everything. Every one is right. no one is wrong. Were all entitled to our own opinions and no one can tell us were wrong."
That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

Good for you. The tolerance most of the rest of us are speaking in support of means "Allow everyone to live their lives as they see fit, provided they don't harm others in doing so". I guess we won't really have much more to say to each other, unless you don't like that kind of tolerance either.

Because when queers do it its icky.

Some people have no taste.

Marriages can be done in a secular setting, man.

In fact, it's required in France. You can have a religious marriage later if you want, but the secular one performed by the state is the legally binding one.

Um. Is there some typo in your statement? I sure hope there is.

Do you honestly think that Congress would vote to allow same sex marriage? Or to ban capital punishment, for that matter? Medicinal marijuana certainly wouldn't be legal in California, nor would assisted suicide be legal in Oregon.

I'd prefer that same sex marriage were allowed everywhere but at the moment too many people think it's "icky". Being a federation (as opposed to a unitary state) allows some places to have sane laws before the rest of the country catches on. It's imperfect, but better than the alternative.

However, do feel free to tell me what you think is wrong with my statement, I'd be glad to hear it.

Like I said at the end of my post I am talking about the modern and most used term Tolerance. Tolerance is used today as a word for "Accept everything. Every one is right. no one is wrong. Were all entitled to our own opinions and no one can tell us were wrong."
That is the tolerance I am speaking against.

And how does that relate?

Jesus preached 'be a separate people'. Jesus preached separation of church and state.

The idea of religion dictating the law of the nation is not only immoral and against the principles of the Constitution - it's also anathema to what the New Testament teaches. Voting to withhold marriage rights based on YOUR religious belief, is antichrist.

Touche Sdaeriji.

Jesus preached tolerating people and not judging people, not actions. In fact, he was rather harsh towards actions. Second, in Catholic theology at least, we are called to love homosexuals, but be against their ways of life, for it is not the best way for them.
The first website is the argument, the second is of a converted gay activist.
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=165&category=Life%20&%20Family~Homosexuality
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=169&category=Life%20&%20Family~Homosexuality
However, there is difference of opinion. On the basis of seperation of church and state, I believe the government has no right to marry anybody, gay or straight. Most people I know against gay marriage are fine with civil unions. If you don't marry anybody, everybody is equal, most people are happy, and marriage becomes what it should be. A religious covenant.

If your objection is to "public displays of affection" as such, what does same-sex marriage have to do with it?

Not a bad point, actually. I retract my second point and stand by my first--Connecticut doesn't need any more Rhode Island liberals :rolleyes:.

Because when queers do it its icky.

You're putting words into my mouth.

...and you now have 5000 posts. Go you.

However, there is difference of opinion. On the basis of seperation of church and state, I believe the government has no right to marry anybody, gay or straight. Most people I know against gay marriage are fine with civil unions. If you don't marry anybody, everybody is equal, most people are happy, and marriage becomes what it should be. A religious covenant.

To bad that marriage was secular and had nothing to do with religions long before religion stole it.

So your opinion that thats "what it should be" is to be blunt, wrong, and fucking stupid.

If you look at it any marriage between two non-Christians isn't Biblical. That isn't to say they cannot become Christians later or something. What most people don't know is that even though they say they are Christian they don't actually know what they believe in.
Homosexuals can become Christian, there's nothing saying they can't, but you cannot be a Christian and still be married to others of the same sex.

Once again if anyone sees flaws in my understanding of the Bible then please call me out on it.

We understand what you are saying. Our point is that it is irrelevant. Marriage is a secular institution in the US. Christians can get married, Jews can get married, Muslims can get married, Buddhists can get married, even atheists can get married. Why shouldn't gays be able to call their union marriage?

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

Jesus preached tolerating people and not judging people, not actions. In fact, he was rather harsh towards actions. Second, in Catholic theology at least, we are called to love homosexuals, but be against their ways of life, for it is not the best way for them.


And that opinion matters... how? What is best for you, is best for you. What is best for someone else, is their lookout.


The first website is the argument, the second is of a converted gay activist.
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=165&category=Life%20&%20Family~Homosexuality
http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=169&category=Life%20&%20Family~Homosexuality
However, there is difference of opinion. On the basis of seperation of church and state, I believe the government has no right to marry anybody, gay or straight.


Then you are wrong. The basis of marriage is contractual. American law adds something like 900+ specific rights to the state of marriage. It is absolutely a government matter.

On the other hand, religion has no real claim.


Most people I know against gay marriage are fine with civil unions. If you don't marry anybody, everybody is equal, most people are happy,


And we should legislate for rights based on the majority?

You realise, by that logic, there is no emancipation for the black man?


...and marriage becomes what it should be. A religious covenant.

Horseshit. Marriage existed before Christianity, and before Judaism. Marriage has always been a secular affair. On the other hand marriage CEREMONIES can be religious events. It's a shame you confuse the two.

Do you honestly think that Congress would vote to allow same sex marriage? Or to ban capital punishment, for that matter? Medicinal marijuana certainly wouldn't be legal in California, nor would assisted suicide be legal in Oregon.

I'd prefer that same sex marriage were allowed everywhere but at the moment too many people think it's "icky". Being a federation (as opposed to a unitary state) allows some places to have sane laws before the rest of the country catches on. It's imperfect, but better than the alternative.

However, do feel free to tell me what you think is wrong with my statement, I'd be glad to hear it.

I'm not sure where to begin in explaining what is wrong with your statements. I'll stick to the most basic problem: the 14th Amendment, which guarantees everyone protection of fundamental liberties (such as the right to marriage) and equal protection under the laws (such as no denial of marriage based on gender or sexual orientation).

The fundamental rights and equality of man shouldn't be subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion or the arbitrariness of state laws.

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

I'm sure there are quite a few gay christians who disagree with you. Probably some straight ones, too.

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

And, I'm saying you are wrong. You don't get to decide what is christianity, that's already been done. If a church wants to allow gay marriages, they should be allowed to. If they don't, they shouldn't be forced to. But the position of the church should have no impact on the legality of the institution.

If someone calls themselves christian, AND homosexual.... that's up to them. You don't get to judge them, and you are to hold yourself separate from making those decisions for them.

If there's any answering to be done, it rests with a higher power than you.

But, to be honest, based on reading the scripture - there isn't. Paul said it's better to marry than to burn. Sanctifying gay love with the covenant of marriage is the christian thing to do.

The fundamental rights and equality of man shouldn't be subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion or the arbitrariness of state laws.

"The fundamental rights and equality" of human beings shouldn't be subject to the arbitrariness of federal laws, either.

And, judging by atrocities like DOMA, if same-sex marriage were, we'd be in much worse shape than we are now in that respect.

However, there is difference of opinion. On the basis of seperation of church and state, I believe the government has no right to marry anybody, gay or straight. Most people I know against gay marriage are fine with civil unions. If you don't marry anybody, everybody is equal, most people are happy, and marriage becomes what it should be. A religious covenant.


First, I love the My Lai Massacre approach that so-called defenders of marriage such as yourself take: "We must destroy marriage to save it from the ebil gays!"

Second, marriage is a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human rights. It isn't just some privilege reserved for the religious.

Third, your idea of separation of Church and State is, frankly, ass-backwards.

I'm not sure where to begin in explaining what is wrong with your statements. I'll stick to the most basic problem: the 14th Amendment, which guarantees everyone protection of fundamental liberties (such as the right to marriage) and equal protection under the laws (such as no denial of marriage based on gender or sexual orientation).

The fundamental rights and equality of man shouldn't be subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion or the arbitrariness of state laws.

I agree, but unfortunately much of the country doesn't believe that those are human rights and unfortunately until the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue they are subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion and the arbitrariness of laws, state or Federal. At least with the federal system some areas of the country can recognize them as such, until the rest of the country gets on board or the wheels of the judicial system finally turn.

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

And what makes you think it is being 'masked with the guise of Christianity'?

"The fundamental rights and equality" of human beings shouldn't be subject to the arbitrariness of federal laws, either.

And, judging by atrocities like DOMA, if same-sex marriage were, we'd be in much worse shape than we are now in that respect.

My point, which I thought was clear, is that we have Constitutions, both federal and state, to protect fundamental rights and equality.

Granted, the powers that be may not yet be willing to properly enforce the 14th Amendment, but that doesn't mean they never should or that it shouldn't exist.

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

Half the Episcopalian church disagrees with you, as do a significant number of Catholics and Lutherans. Not all Christians disagree with gay marriage.

Have you been reading any of my posts Grave n idle? I am saying gay marriage is A OK as long as they don't mask it with the guise of Christianity because it is not Christianity.

Not your version anyways ... there are other Christians that disagree with your opinion on the matter

Which is the "more" legit?

While I myself could honestly care less about who people decide to spend their lives with, no one is going to deny that traditional Christianity (ie, by the Bible) is no friend of gay marriage. While not all Christians believe that it's wrong, the Christian religion as a whole very much looks down on it.

While I myself could honestly care less about who people decide to spend their lives with, no one is going to deny that traditional Christianity (ie, by the Bible) is no friend of gay marriage. While not all Christians believe that it's wrong, the Christian religion as a whole very much looks down on it.

The bible doesn't mention gay marriage.

You are confusing tradition, with scripture.

My point, which I thought was clear, is that we have Constitutions, both federal and state, to protect fundamental rights and equality.

Granted, the powers that be may not yet be willing to properly enforce the 14th Amendment, but that doesn't mean they never should or that it shouldn't exist.

Actually, I see the enforcement of civil rights as one of the few legitimate functions of the Federal government.

The bible doesn't mention gay marriage.

You are confusing tradition, with scripture.

Ah, but in Genesis 2:21-24 and Matthew 19:4-6, isn't marriage defined as between a man and a woman?

All hail the google search, btw. As the worst Catholic in Connecticut, I've only skimmed the Bible once, and only the good parts where God is smiting people.

The bible doesn't mention gay marriage.

You are confusing tradition, with scripture.

And before the 12th (or 13th, cant remember exactly) the catholic church didnt have a problem with homosexuals. In fact, in the early Middle Ages, there were openly gay people and whole gay communities, if you can imagine that.


It is tradition, and not even the original tradition.

While I myself could honestly care less.....
Shouldn't that be "couldn't"?
And before the 12th (or 13th, cant remember exactly) the catholic church didnt have a problem with homosexuals. In fact, in the early Middle Ages, there were openly gay people and whole gay communities, if you can imagine that.


It is tradition, and not even the original tradition.

I did not know this. I approve greatly.

it's only a matter of time before the famine and natural disasters become an everyday occurrence in our little state

Ah, but in Genesis 2:21-24 and Matthew 19:4-6, isn't marriage defined as between a man and a woman?


Genesis 2 allows absolutely everyone currently alive on the planet at that point, to marry every single other person currently alive on the planet. It's hardly a good example.

To compound that - tracking through the text, the speaker is Adam - so it wouldn't be 'binding' anyway.

To compound it even further, it MUST have been a redaction. Even if you were willing to accept that a real, literal Adam said it - he can't have said what Genesis 2:24 claims - since he had no idea what a 'mother' was, at that point.

It's one of the conflicts in the scripture that Jesus is supposed (in Matthew 19) to have claimed that it was God that made the speech, but it's also somewhat irrelevent - because Jesus isn't discussing marriage, he's using the Genesis 2 quote to support a position on divorce.

I did not know this. I approve greatly.

Yeah, it was an unfortunate side effect of the Church trying to ride themselves of corruption (the first time). They kinda got...less tolerant.

Shouldn't that be "couldn't"?

No.

I did not know this. I approve greatly.

Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few of the Roman Emperors banned gay marriage outright, and after the fall of Rome, the practice was heavily frowned upon. Not sure where KoL's info is coming from, actually.

Unless I'm mistaken, quite a few of the Roman Emperors banned gay marriage outright, and after the fall of Rome, the practice was heavily frowned upon. Not sure where KoL's info is coming from, actually.

My education.


And Rome to my knowledge never banned gay marriage. There were numerous gay Emperors.

In fact, some of the better ones were gay.

Genesis 2 allows absolutely everyone currently alive on the planet at that point, to marry every single other person currently alive on the planet. It's hardly a good example.

To compound that - tracking through the text, the speaker is Adam - so it wouldn't be 'binding' anyway.

To compound it even further, it MUST have been a redaction. Even if you were willing to accept that a real, literal Adam said it - he can't have said what Genesis 2:24 claims - since he had no idea what a 'mother' was, at that point.

It's one of the conflicts in the scripture that Jesus is supposed (in Matthew 19) to have claimed that it was God that made the speech, but it's also somewhat irrelevent - because Jesus isn't discussing marriage, he's using the Genesis 2 quote to support a position on divorce.

Oooh, now this I consider interesting. Thank's for the info.

I did not know this. I approve greatly.

Most people tend to ignore the fact that 'the church' wasn't active in marriages for most people, until fairly recently in history. European 'common law' marriage chiefly exists because that's what marriage WAS for the common folk.

'Church' marriage, and all the legalistic crap that we now associate with being married, were the province of the rich - where it was important to assert rights to things like property, titles and lineage.

And before the 12th (or 13th, cant remember exactly) the catholic church didnt have a problem with homosexuals. In fact, in the early Middle Ages, there were openly gay people and whole gay communities, if you can imagine that.
Gay marriages were only performed by the Greek and Celtic churches. The Roman church was never gay-friendly.

However, I'm really tired of seeing the word "tolerance" used in regard to gay marriage because I see very little of it from those who favor it being extended to those that oppose it. Admittedly, tolerance is lacking on the opposition side as well, but the point is that the pro-gay marriage people tend to demand tolerance and then refuse it to those who oppose them. The Anti-gay marriage people openly proclaim they are NOT tolerant.

We have a low tolerance towards anti-gay bigotry for the same reasons we have a low tolerance towards child molesters, mass murderers, and telemarketers.

Oooh, now this I consider interesting. Thank's for the info.

*bows*

My education.


And Rome to my knowledge never banned gay marriage. There were numerous gay Emperors.

In fact, some of the better ones were gay.

More properly, they practiced bisexuality. Very few (none as far as I'm aware) were acknowledged as strictly homosexual.

My education.


And Rome to my knowledge never banned gay marriage. There were numerous gay Emperors.

In fact, some of the better ones were gay.

Constantius II banned it outright. While many early Emperors were gay, the Christian ones were never gay-friendly in the legal sense.

Constantius II banned it outright. While many early Emperors were gay, the Christian ones were never gay-friendly in the legal sense.

The Christians Emperors of Rome werent really anything-friendly.


Regardless, until Thomas Aquinas (curse his soul to eternal damnation) the Catholic Church tolerated/ignored homosexuality.

Gay marriages were only performed by the Greek and Celtic churches. The Roman church was never gay-friendly.

Russia had at least one homosexual saint.

The Christians Emperors of Rome werent really anything-friendly.

Granted, but the point remains.

Woop! That'll learn 'em.

Granted, but the point remains.

Indeed, yet my point remains as well. Until the Thomas Aquinas, the Church didnt really give a damn about gays or them getting married.

Russia had at least one homosexual saint.

Is he the patron saint of buttsex?

More properly, they practiced bisexuality. Very few (none as far as I'm aware) were acknowledged as strictly homosexual.You are mistaken. Hadrian was strictly homosexual, quite overtly. Elagabalus was transsexual (wanted a surgeon to make him a woman), but that's a different kettle of fish.

Russia had at least one homosexual saint.
Yes, St. Sergei. But Russia was part of the Greek church.

Indeed, yet my point remains as well. Until the Thomas Aquinas, the Church didnt really give a damn about gays or them getting married.

Ah, did you edit that in? Sorry, I didn't see it before.

I thought I pretty much just proved you wrong? Christian emperors banned it, and Leo IX denounced it in...1049? Meh, I always forget dates...

(non-sarcastic, it's hard to write over the internet...)

Ah, did you edit that in? Sorry, I didn't see it before.

I thought I pretty much just proved you wrong? Christian emperors banned it, and Leo IX denounced it in...1049? Meh, I always forget dates...

(non-sarcastic, it's hard to write over the internet...)

The banning of an Emperor would not affect Europe after the fall of Rome.

And Leo may have denounced it, but they were not persecuting gays. And actually, its possible the persecution started with Leo. I dont know when Tom Aquinius was writing exactly.

Rome fell in 476 (well, thats traditionally when its delcared to have fallen). Thomas was writing in the 13th cenury. Thats roughly 800 years were the Catholic Church tolerated/ignored homosexuality and gays could be open without becoming human torches.

You are mistaken. Hadrian was strictly homosexual, quite overtly. Elagabalus was transsexual (wanted a surgeon to make him a woman), but that's a different kettle of fish.



Yeah, lets stick to Hadrian. He was a good Emperor. Elagbalus was pretty awful.

The banning of an Emperor would not affect Europe after the fall of Rome.

And Leo may have denounced it, but they were not persecuting gays. And actually, its possible the persecution started with Leo. I dont know when Tom Aquinius was writing exactly.

I believe the mid 13th century. Regardless, it was denounced several dozen times before then, including at the Council of Ancyra. Penitential codes from the time are definitely not gay-friendly, and while Aquinius may have passed it into "law," it was not accepted before his time either.

And for the record, I do not agree with the Catholic Church on this one. In fact, I've actually walked out of Mass when they start going into all that "gays are the devil" shit--I'm just stating facts about Christian history b/c I'm a history freak like that :D.

You are mistaken. Hadrian was strictly homosexual, quite overtly. Elagabalus was transsexual (wanted a surgeon to make him a woman), but that's a different kettle of fish.

While Hadrian's exploits with Antinous are well-documented, both Hadrian and Elagabalus kept multiple female consorts, and Elagabalus even wed five times (though he considered his chariot-driver slave his husband).

I believe the mid 13th century. Regardless, it was denounced several dozen times before then, including at the Council of Ancyra. Penitential codes from the time are definitely not gay-friendly, and while Aquinius may have passed it into "law," it was not accepted before his time either.

I really should stop editing my posts;)

Anyway, Im not denying there was persecution. My point is, the Catholic Church as an entity was not prosectuing homosexuals. And while some areas were, the fact that there was no centralized state in the early Middle Ages (and in areas for most of the Middle Ages) meant that laws were not universal. So there were indeed some communities were homosexuals were not persecuted and tolerated.

This all changes when the church began to actively persecute them.

And your right. Tom was writing in the 13th century. I looked it up. My google-fu is strong.

And for the record, I do not agree with the Catholic Church on this one. In fact, I've actually walked out of Mass when they start going into all that "gays are the devil" shit--I'm just stating facts about Christian history b/c I'm a history freak like that :D.

And to be fair, youve been pretty accurate. Im just showing some facts you may have overlooked;)

Go Conneticut!

-By Kirav, the Pro-Gay Christian

Anyway, Im not denying there was persecution. My point is, the Catholic Church as an entity was not prosectuing homosexuals. And while some areas were, the fact that there was no centralized state in the early Middle Ages (and in areas for most of the Middle Ages) meant that laws were not universal. So there were indeed some communities were homosexuals were not persecuted and tolerated.

This all changes when the church began to actively persecute them.

Yeah, and while there is no centralized state, there is no centralized religious structure that can be spread throughout Europe as there is during the time of TA. Many had no idea that being gay was considered "wrong," just like you said, which speaks volumes about a world without crazy radical religious people.

On this one, I must agree with you. However, as for the official policy of the Church, I'm 99.99% sure that they were always the same anti-gay society as they are now. They just never had the power to exercise their beliefs on the people until the Church began to spread along with Christian governments.

Go Conneticut!

You'd be killed in some circles for forgetting that c. Just try to spell Connecticutian off the top of your head :rolleyes:

On this one, I must agree with you. However, as for the official policy of the Church, I'm 99.99% sure that they were always the same anti-gay society as they are now. They just never had the power to exercise their beliefs on the people until the Church began to spread along with Christian governments.

Thats possible. The records simply show that gays were in some places free to be open and not persecuted, and the greek orthodox and celtic churches allowed them to be married.

The reasons for such are open to speculation. It could be tolerance, it could be incompetence. I guess we both just have different interpertations. ;)

The reasons for such are open to speculation. It could be tolerance, it could be incompetence. I guess we both just have different interpertations. ;)

Yeah, it's tough to interpret some of those old latin documents and laws, especially since they seem to vary from day to day...anyways, nice conversation, and I'm now only about 70 posts away from 1,000 ;)

Yeah, it's tough to interpret some of those old latin documents and laws, especially since they seem to vary from day to day...anyways, nice conversation,

Indeed it was.

and I'm now only about 70 posts away from 1,000 ;)

Time to spam it seems.

While I myself could honestly care less about who people decide to spend their lives with, no one is going to deny that traditional Christianity (ie, by the Bible) is no friend of gay marriage. While not all Christians believe that it's wrong, the Christian religion as a whole very much looks down on it.

The Bible also sanctions genocide (Genesis 6 & 19, Deuteronomy 7, Joshua 6-10, Numbers 31 etc.)

The Bible sanctions the murder of those practising birth control (Genesis 38:6-10)

The Bible sanctions the punishment of childen and grandchildren for crimes comitted (Exodus 20:5-6), the legal rape of women (Deuteronomy 22:28-29),

Oh, and here's some copypasta relating to Leviticus

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I do look forward to your enlightenment regarding the questions that puzzle me. Then I shall pass them along to others who may appreciate your moral leadership.

Sincerely.

Why cherry pick from the Bible that which you agree with and ignore everything else?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage




This is excellent. It's good to see this kind of progress in such dark times.

So, how long until God hits them with a meteor?

When I read the title, my first thought was, "Oh geez, what did my state do now?". But this isn't something I oppose (and it doesn't affect me, either). As to your question, hopefully never. Although I'm close enough to Rhode Island that I could sneak over the border if I need to.

Oh, and here's some copypasta relating to Leviticus



Why cherry pick from the Bible that which you agree with and ignore everything else?

Awesome. Were did you find that letter?

Awesome. Were did you find that letter?

I found it here (http://www.halexandria.org/dward210.htm), but it started on Usenet. I have no clue who the original writer is.

LOL. That is an incredible letter, and the writer should undoubtedly be given a cookie.

Well, my state already passed gay marriage, and I haven't seen anyone's head explode. So... no big deal for me. (Bump to try and get that 1,000 mark for ya!)

In fact, it's required in France. You can have a religious marriage later if you want, but the secular one performed by the state is the legally binding one.
That's actually the way it's done in the U.S. What the church does means shit if you don't go to the registrar and get that slip of paper.

That letter is pretty old, I've read it a few times before over the years. It seems like I have been desecrating quite a few temples, since I've visited a fair number of churches over the years while wearing glasses or lenses. When can I expect the evangelical death squad to knock on my door?

That letter is pretty old, I've read it a few times before over the years. It seems like I have been desecrating quite a few temples, since I've visited a fair number of churches over the years while wearing glasses or lenses. When can I expect the evangelical death squad to knock on my door?

Silly libruhl, they're not a death squad, they're a Faith Squad. :tongue:

In fact, in the early Middle Ages, there were openly gay people and whole gay communities, if you can imagine that.

Always have been, always will be.

Regardless, until Thomas Aquinas (curse his soul to eternal damnation) the Catholic Church tolerated/ignored homosexuality.

Unfortunately, this is false. There was homophobic legislation dating back to the early Christian emperors, and definite anti-gay sentiment in a variety of Church publications.

Gay marriages were only performed by the Greek and Celtic churches.

Source this, please.

That's actually the way it's done in the U.S. What the church does means shit if you don't go to the registrar and get that slip of paper.

Yes, but in France the civil marriage must precede the religious one. A cleric cannot perform a religious marriage unless you show them the certificate you got from the mayor or his deputy.

And it's not a matter of just getting a slip from the Mairie, there is a ceremony that a civil servant performs and it must be performed in the city hall.

Gay marriages were only performed by the Greek and Celtic churches.

That's right! We Celts've been keepin' it real!

To be honest, though, I've never heard of this, but I'm interested.