The ancient Egyptians held marriage as a sacred bond. The family was broken down into roles that each would play in order for things to run smoothly. The father was the one who would work all day. In smaller households the mother was in charge of all things pertaining to the house. Cooking, cleaning and watching the children were all her responsibilities. Egyptians seem to have taken mates in what most often appears to be lifelong monogamous relationships. marriage and a close family played an integral role in ancient Egypt.
A bride would be young, about 14 or 15 years old. Her husband could be anywhere from 17 to 20—or older if he was divorced or a widower. The ancient Egyptians were encouraged to marry young, considering that the life span at this time was relatively short.
Zoroster also had the similar view. In the end, all were between man and woman. Most of the time a young man and young woman under guidance of the parents.
Sorry, but no. First, I asked for a link as to marriage laws, not what the typical marriage was like. For example, while your link claims "A bride would be young, about 14 or 15 years old", I'm sure they don't mean to say that only 14 or 15 year old women could marry. In the same way, nowhere does it say that it could only be a man and woman, this is merely saying what was typical. Much like if gays were allowed to marry, since gays are fewer than 10% of the population, a man and woman would still be the typical marriage.
Instead, we do have evidence, as BigBadWlf pointed out, that gay marriage did occur in ancient Egypt.
As for your portion bolded in red, the differences of the woman being in the home are primarily technology related. As late as 60 years ago, women spent most of their day just cooking. Of course, included in cooking was the time it took to build and maintain the fires. Flour often came as wheat, and had to be ground, they had to churn their own butter, etc. It was with the invention of packaged and processed foods about a century ago that started changing things, as well as gas and electric stoves and ovens. Simply put, a woman is no longer bound to the kitchen as she was in earlier centuries.
And even if you are correct, does this mean that our age of consent laws are wrong? After all, historically females did marry in their early teen years so apparently we have changed marriage from what it was historicall.
And as the above shows had the same views on the basics of marriage.
And as I point out above, you have been proven wrong on this. Not to mention as others have pointed out, the practice of polygamy and concubines was allowed in ancient Israel which is another change in marriage.
Those are not old manuscripts like the Veda
You asked for evidence, not for quotes from the Veda. Though I do find it ironic since Tritiya-Prakriti is the Sanskrit word found in the Veda that translates to "third sex". If you studied, there are plenty of refrences to be found in the Veda.
We see the general consensus of marriage has always been between man and woman. I believe things happen for a reason and its no accident that something that has existed nearly as long as man has always been what it was understood as; a monogamous union betwen man and woman. Does a small community, really have the right to all of a sudden change probably 6-8 thousand years of what marriage always has been and was? You don't find this at all a great disrespect to the dignity and honor of marriage?
Again, historically there are plenty of examples of homosexual marriage. But even if that weren't true, let me paraphrase what you just said:
Does a small community, really have the right all of a sudden change probably 6-8 thousand years of what slavery always has been and was? You don't find this all a great disrespect to the dignity and honor of slavery?
As was pointed out to you by BigBadWlf, you are simply appealing to history. And simply because something was done historically does not show that it was right.
The bibles reference to homosexuality as sin only gives you one option left by default however.
That is debated among Christians but it really has no bearing on US law. Much like Divorce is wrong per the Bible but no Christians are trying to outlaw it; and, per your own claims, divorce is even a greater threat to marriage.
please read again the red bold from Ambrose.
16. All lawmakers, in and out of the Church are warned, to their peril, to hear and obey the Word of the Lord in regard to His commands on marriage and divorce. (Ambrose)
But that still says nothing about the church regulating or performing marriage. That merely says that members of the church should follow the scriptures. If I point out an early church father pointing out that people should hear and obey the word of the Lord in regard to caring for the poor that means that only the church is allowed to care for the poor? Do you see where your logic fails here?
And again I wouldn't use American divorce stastistics as proof from religioustolerance.com.
You don't like religioustolerance just because they disagree with you? The statistics they quote are all referenced, and from what I've seen they quote the studies accurately. If you can find where they haven't referenced or have misrepresented these statistics, I'd be interested in seeing it.
I could give you several christian nations that have the lowest divorce rate in the world like Armenia and Macedonia.
And India has even lower divorce rates, which is not Christian. The fact is that most Christian countries have much higher divorce rates.
But to get back to the point, you have no evidence that gay marriage will cause a weakening of marriage, just vague claims and fearmongering.
you could in a sense. But that still dosen't negate the fact that there are special prerequisites for marriage , those special prerequisites are what define it in the first place.
So you claim, though you have provided no evidence to prove that. In fact, the evidence so far shows the opposite.
