Constitutional rights and equal protection (gay marriage related)

[SiderealExalt]

I wonder how many people who are Yes on 8 have gay friends out of curiosity. I don't think I could look any of the gay people I knew in the face and tell them no you can't get married to some one you love.

 

[Beanieboy]

I wonder how many people who are Yes on 8 have gay friends out of curiosity. I don't think I could look any of the gay people I knew in the face and tell them no you can't get married to some one you love.

That's the ironic thing. The Prop takes away the right for gays to marry, and yet this is coming the strongest from a group that claims to follow Jesus and Love their neighbor as themselves.

 

[Beanieboy]

I don't use filthy immoral cities like Las Vegas as a calibrator of what marriage is. And if your using las vegas and the government as a definer on what marriage is then you really have lost the concept in the first place. Why call it marriage when you deny the things that make it marriage in the first place.

And yet, you have no problem with those marriages being legal, and recognized.

Around 90% of the marriage antics in the US I do not support. However actually trying to change the whole essence of marriage to cater to ones sexual lifestyles is not what true marriage is. Marriage involves sacrifice.

Also you don't become a minority by a sexual act. And to even call yourself a minority brings shame to real minority groups. Considering most gay communitys will have NOTHING to do with minority areas in the city and are busy in the more affluent areas and could care less. So please

If you don't become a minority by a sexual act, why do people like Pat Robertson talk about gays, validating that it is, indeed, a minority, and because the community has experienced discrimination solely based on the sexual act, as you call it.

However, I don't think marriage is solely about sex. In fact, it's only a small part of it. Most of it is about the emotional, loving the other in actions, supporting them in times of need. encouraging them to do their best. conversation and enjoying each other's company.

The gay community will have nothing to do with minorities in the city?
My partner is black. He is a prof in education, focusing on inner city youth, and black communities and schools.

The gay community is a mixture of race, so we are part of the minority community.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Sorry, but no. You might want to study your history a bit more. Prior to the Council of Trent in 1545, marriage was not religious. No priest was required, nor even witnesses, for a Christian marriage. And it was only in the Middle Ages that the church even began to record marriages, and even then it wasn't required. It was the Council of Trent in 1545 that made marriage religious, requiring a priest and two witnesses. Of course, this only applied to Catholics, Protestant churches did not require religion involved in marriage.

I'd also like to point out that the Christian Emperor Constantius and Constans in the year 342 made gay marriage illegal in the Roman Empire, it was legal before.

It wasn't legal during the time of Abraham or Moses. And was deemed such an abomination to God that stoning was prescribed. Hinduism, which makes the claim to be the oldest religion also denys same sex "marriage". Technically the concept of a monogamous marriage has always come from judeo-christian heritage.

The pagan form of "marriage" was more common as "unions" and not really marriage in the sense. Marriage in the sense we see it comes from the Hebrew law and then through its fullfillment in Christ. Women are to be in subjection to their husbands, meek, quiet, caretakers of home and child rearing. The husband is to support, work, and keep stability of his family and children. This is not possible with 2 people of the same sex because of materal and paternal instinct and the different natures between man and woman. This is what has been prescribed by God in both NT and OT.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Also, marriage is a special right. Not a regular one

 

[OphidiaPhile]

It wasn't legal during the time of Abraham or Moses. And was deemed such an abomination to God that stoned was prescribed. Hinduism, which makes the claim to be the oldest religion also denys same sex "marriage". Technically the concept of a monogamous marriage has always come from judeo-christian heritage.

The pagan form of "marriage" was more common as "unions" and not really marriage in the sense. Marriage in the sense we see it comes from the Hebrew law and then through its fullfillment in Christ. Women are to be in subjection to their husbands, meek, quiet, caretakers of home and child rearing. The husband is to support, work, and keep stability of his family and children. This is not possible with 2 people of the same sex because of materal and paternal instinct and the different natures between man and woman. This is what has been prescribed by God in both NT and OT.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

The type of woman you describe only exists in the heads of controlling domineering males not men that actually want a healthy balanced relationship.

 

[SiderealExalt]

It wasn't legal during the time of Abraham or Moses. And was deemed such an abomination to God that stoned was prescribed.

Ah yes the time of Abraham and Moses, when disease and mental illness was caused by being possessed by evil spirits, and women were often property. Ah the lovely life lessons we can take from this "kinder" "gentler" time in history boys and girls.

Hinduism, which makes the claim to be the oldest religion also denys same sex "marriage". Technically the concept of a monogamous marriage has always come from judeo-christian heritage.

*points and laughs* Open marriages is a relatively rare worldwide cultural phenomenon.

The pagan form of "marriage" was more common as "unions" and not really marriage in the sense. Marriage in the sense we see it comes from the Hebrew law and then through its fullfillment in Christ. Women are to be in subjection to their husbands, meek, quiet, caretakers of home and child rearing. The husband is to support, work, and keep stability of his family and children. This is not possible with 2 people of the same sex because of materal and paternal instinct and the different natures between man and woman. This is what has been prescribed by God in both NT and OT.

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Ah well pack it in folks, apparently non Christian marriage isn't marriage at all.

I think Creed is just making Christianity to sound like a toddler going through that possessive phase, trying to grab up all kinds of cultural phenomenon and going " MINE MINE MINE!!!"

 

[OphidiaPhile]

Ah yes the time of Abraham and Moses, when disease and mental illness was caused by being possessed by evil spirits, and women were often property. Ah the lovely life lessons we can take from this "kinder" "gentler" time in history boys and girls.



*points and laughs* Open marriages is a relatively rare worldwide cultural phenomenon.



Ah well pack it in folks, apparently non Christian marriage isn't marriage at all.

I think Creed is just making Christianity to sound like a toddler going through that possessive phase, trying to grab up all kinds of cultural phenomenon and going " MINE MINE MINE!!!"

Post of the day.

 

[Maren]

It wasn't legal during the time of Abraham or Moses. And was deemed such an abomination to God that stoning was prescribed.

Interesting straw man. I guess you are going to tell me now that Abraham and Moses lived in the Roman Empire? I never said the Jews allowed homosexuals to marry, did I? That is what makes this response a straw man. What I did show is that marriage has not always been only between man and woman, which was your previous claim before erecting this straw man.

Hinduism, which makes the claim to be the oldest religion also denys same sex "marriage". Technically the concept of a monogamous marriage has always come from judeo-christian heritage.

No, they deny same-sex marriage today. The have not always, in fact that change started occuring around the same time that Christians conquered Hindu lands a few hundred years ago. Laws on the books in India outlawing homosexuality are leftover from British Colonial rule. And how do you explain that Hinduism is where the term "the third sex" comes from?

The pagan form of "marriage" was more common as "unions" and not really marriage in the sense.

And I'm sure you'll provide evidence for this, right? By the way, exactly which Pagan religion are we talking about? You do realize, of course, that Hinduism is considered a Pagan religion (specifically Paleopaganism)? Which, of course, dismantles your argument that Pagan marriage was not marriage but unions.

Marriage in the sense we see it comes from the Hebrew law and then through its fullfillment in Christ. Women are to be in subjection to their husbands, meek, quiet, caretakers of home and child rearing. The husband is to support, work, and keep stability of his family and children. This is not possible with 2 people of the same sex because of materal and paternal instinct and the different natures between man and woman. This is what has been prescribed by God in both NT and OT.

So we shouldn't have marriage in places like China and Japan because Christians invented it 2000 years ago, not to mention the Jews? Somehow I think the Chinese, Japanese, and Jews have an older claim on marriage than Christians. Perhaps Christians are the ones that need to come up with a different name for their form of marriage?

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Then why did it take the church over 1,500 years to make marriage a sacrament? Why for the first 1,000 years of Christianity were Priests not allowed to marry people, and even after they were allowed why could marriages not be performed in churches?

Also, marriage is a special right. Not a regular one

Sorry, but no. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court clearly stated that marriage is a right (not a special right).

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Interesting straw man. I guess you are going to tell me now that Abraham and Moses lived in the Roman Empire? I never said the Jews allowed homosexuals to marry, did I? That is what makes this response a straw man. What I did show is that marriage has not always been only between man and woman, which was your previous claim before erecting this straw man.

The earliest records of marriage are in the times of Abraham and the Egyptians. And they were all understood as between man and woman. And right from the writings of Genesis we see the plan for both man and woman. Long before any roman empire

No, they deny same-sex marriage today. The have not always, in fact that change started occuring around the same time that Christians conquered Hindu lands a few hundred years ago. Laws on the books in India outlawing homosexuality are leftover from British Colonial rule. And how do you explain that Hinduism is where the term "the third sex" comes from?

COuld you provide some evidence to this?

And I'm sure you'll provide evidence for this, right? By the way, exactly which Pagan religion are we talking about? You do realize, of course, that Hinduism is considered a Pagan religion (specifically Paleopaganism)? Which, of course, dismantles your argument that Pagan marriage was not marriage but unions.

No I was using this as evidence that even pagan "religions" denied same sex marriage. Which goes to prove the structure of what marriage always has been understood as.

So we shouldn't have marriage in places like China and Japan because Christians invented it 2000 years ago, not to mention the Jews? Somehow I think the Chinese, Japanese, and Jews have an older claim on marriage than Christians. Perhaps Christians are the ones that need to come up with a different name for their form of marriage?

Christianity is connected with the Old Covenant, which makes it alot older than you think it is. Since Christ is eternal he was here before any of us were even born. And through his lips he says:

and He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” - Matthew 19

Then why did it take the church over 1,500 years to make marriage a sacrament? Why for the first 1,000 years of Christianity were Priests not allowed to marry people, and even after they were allowed why could marriages not be performed in churches?

Just because it wasn't officially defined dosen't make it so earlier. And you obviously have not read the apostolic fathers if you make comments like that. Churches did not allow second unions however because of Jesus's command about them being adultry.

Summary of​

Early Church Doctrine on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage​

90 A.D. – 419 A.D.​

1. If a spouse persists in adulterous behavior and there is no other alternative, the marriage relationship can be terminated by the innocent party. (Hermes, Clement, Jerome, Augustine)

2. Spouses that are divorced for any reason must remain celibate and single as long as both spouses live. Remarriage is expressly prohibited. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

3. To indulge in lust with the mind is to be guilty of adultery of the heart. (Justin Martyr)

4. Whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

5. Whoever contracts a second marriage, whether a Christian or not, while a former spouse lives is sinning against God. (Justin Martyr, Ambrose)

6. God does not, and the Church must not, take into account human law when it is in violation of God’s law. (Justin Martyr, Origen, Ambrose)

7. God judges motives and intentions, private thought life and actions.(Justin Martyr)

8. The marriage covenant between a man and a woman is permanent, as long as both husband and wife are alive. (Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

9. It is a serious offence against God to take another person’s spouse. (Basil)

10. The Church must charge all persons who are in possession of another living person’s former husband or wife with adultery. (Basil)

11. Sexual relations are a marital right that is limited to one’s own husband or wife. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

12. Sexual relations with one’s legitimate spouse protects from sexual sin. (Ambrose)

13. Marriage and sexual relations with a remarried spouse while a former spouse lives is the sin of adultery. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

14. It is a serious mistake to believe that it is simply one’s right to divorce a spouse and take another. Even though human law may permit such a thing, God strictly forbids it, and cannot, and will not honor it. (Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

15. Anyone who follows human customs and laws regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, instead of God’s Divine instructions should stand in fearful awe of God Himself. (Clement, 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)

17. Christians are to stop making excuses and trying to find justification for divorce and remarriage. There are no valid reasons acceptable to God. (Jerome, Augustine)

18. A marriage is for life. No matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they may act, what they do or don’t do, or the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. A remarriage while a former spouse lives is not marriage at all, but sinful adultery. God does not divide the one flesh relationship except by physical death. (Hermes, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

19. Marriage is a lifelong covenant that will never be invalidated by God while both parties live. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine)

20.It never has been lawful, it is not now lawful, and it never will be lawful to divorce and remarry. To say and do otherwise is to worship and adopt the adulterous superstitions of a different God than the one to which we have to do. (Augustine)

Sorry, but no. In Loving v. Virginia the Supreme Court clearly stated that marriage is a right (not a special right).

[/quote]

If marriage is a regular right then someone could marry themselves. Or a man could marry an animal, a relative, or an insect. This is obviously not the case. There are special circumstances for marriage and thus is a special right.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

If marriage is a regular right then someone could marry themselves. Or a man could marry an animal, a relative, or an insect. This is obviously not the case. There are special circumstances for marriage and thus is a special right.


Actually in many places one can marry a relative and the others are illogical since they cannot give consent which humans can regardless of sexual orientation. And now in your honor I have made a $50.00 donation to the No on 8 campaign.

 

[Sycophant]

Before the government got their hands on marriage and deemed it acceptable for what they thought marriage was,, in itself marriage was always a religious sacrament with religious requirements,

That may be the case of marriage in Christian history, but marriage has history in other religions also.

even today with the government it still has certain religious requirements like monogamy, child rearing, and being faithful to your spouse and trusting them 100%.

No. None of those are actually requirements of a legal marriage. I could have a marriage that was non-monogamous and could have no trust in my spouse, and none of that affects the legality of our marriage.

So in reality you can't force a certain sexual lifestyle on things like marriage that has always been in essence what it is.

Stop it. It's not a 'sexual lifestyle'. The people gay couple who want to marry are committed and loving couples just as you'd expect of any couple getting married.

Your trying to make other things conform to your own sexual lifestyle, which is selfish.

First: The first "your" should be a "you're" and;
Second: I am not gay. I am married, to my female (that is opposite sex) wife. Just because I don't fear teh gheys doesn't make me one.

Although perhaps I am trying to make things [for homosexual couples] conform to what I have, a legal marriage that would be recognised if I moved to the US.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

That may be the case of marriage in Christian history, but marriage has history in other religions also.

But the general consensus in history is that marriage has always been between man and woman. The gay community could care less about the structure and dignity of marriage and the effects they could cause on it by trying to change it. Show me one gay person that has second questioned what it might do to the structure and dignity of marriage down the line? You've reduced marriage to nothing more than a piece of paper and a court, and nothing more. No wonder the divorce rate is almost 50%. The first 2 big hits were divorce and then abortion. Is gay marriage gonna be strike 3? totally stripe marriage of any dignity and chivalry it has? and when the divorce rate gets to 60% what are you gonna say to over half of all the children in America with no father or mother?

No. None of those are actually requirements of a legal marriage. I could have a marriage that was non-monogamous and could have no trust in my spouse, and none of that affects the legality of our marriage.

and that is what is so sad about it. What is the point of marriage with that type of mindset?

Stop it. It's not a 'sexual lifestyle'. The people gay couple who want to marry are committed and loving couples just as you'd expect of any couple getting married.

Its nothing more than a sexual lifestyle ruled by lust. You have no buisness meddling with marriage when you don't even know what marriage is in the first place.

First: The first "your" should be a "you're" and;
Second: I am not gay. I am married, to my female (that is opposite sex) wife. Just because I don't fear teh gheys doesn't make me one.

this has nothing to do with fearing gay people. This has to do with ruining many future familys and our next generation of children by ruining to structure of marriage and family. All this is gonna do is raise the divorce rates even higher and thus create a whole new set of problems, considering that children born out of wedlock or divorce have almost a 50% chance higher of going to prison and getting into crime.

Although perhaps I am trying to make things [for homosexual couples] conform to what I have, a legal marriage that would be recognised if I moved to the US

marriage in itself is about sacrifice and conforming to your spouses needs and wants. If your not willing to sacrifice yourself for marriage then you don't have the right mind set in the first place.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

But the general consensus in history is that marriage has always been between man and woman. The gay community could care less about the structure and dignity of marriage and the effects they could cause on it by trying to change it. Show me one gay person that has second questioned what it might do to the structure of marriage down the line? You've reduced marriage to nothing more than a piece of paper and a court, and nothing more. No wonder the divorce rate is almost 50%. The first 2 big hits were divorce and then abortion. Is gay marriage gonna be strike 3? totally stripe marriage of any dignity and chivalry it has? and when the divorce rate gets to 60% what are you gonna say to over half of all the children in America with no father or mother?





And how exactly would gay couples getting married undermine your marriage?

 

[CreedIsChrist]

But the general consensus in history is that marriage has always been between man and woman. The gay community could care less about the structure and dignity of marriage and the effects they could cause on it by trying to change it. Show me one gay person that has second questioned what it might do to the structure of marriage down the line? You've reduced marriage to nothing more than a piece of paper and a court, and nothing more. No wonder the divorce rate is almost 50%. The first 2 big hits were divorce and then abortion. Is gay marriage gonna be strike 3? totally stripe marriage of any dignity and chivalry it has? and when the divorce rate gets to 60% what are you gonna say to over half of all the children in America with no father or mother?





And how exactly would gay couples getting married undermine your marriage?

I have Christ as my shield and the Word of God as my guide. So no external would undermine my family because I can recognize and discern the bad from good because I possess the only truth in this world, which is Jesus Christ.

Gay "marriage" will hurt the dignity, structure, and chivalry of future marriage because it will cause people to have a lessened and cheapened view on marriage, which in turn will cause people to view marriage as less important and more disposable, which can only cause one thing, increased divorce and lessened family structure. Its no different when people see celebritys get married for a month and then divorced after. It puts an imprint on regular peoples minds, especially people who do not have the truth and are unable to discern between good and evil. Take a look at what Feminism, abortion, and Divorce has caused to marriage today. Its no different with gay marriage. They all devalue the dignity and structure of marriage and the proof in the pudding is the alarming divorce rates that soared once divorce, feminism and abortion became "acceptable" in society.

 

[OllieFranz]

I have Christ as my shield and the Word of God as my guide. So no external would undermine my family because I can recognize and discern the bad from good because I possess the only truth in this world, which is Jesus Christ.

Gay "marriage" will hurt the dignity, structure, and chivalry of future marriage because it will cause people to have a lessened and cheapened view on marriage, which in turn will cause people to view marriage as less important and more disposable, which can only cause one thing, increased divorce and lessened family structure. Its no different when people see celebritys get married for a month and then divorced after. It puts an imprint on regular peoples minds, especially people who do not have the truth and are unable to discern between good and evil. Take a look at what Feminism, abortion, and Divorce has caused to marriage today. Its no different with gay marriage. They all devalue the dignity and structure of marriage and the proof in the pudding is the alarming divorce rates that soared once divorce, feminism and abortion became "acceptable" in society.

So you seem to be saying that same-sex marriage will "cheapen" the image of "real" marriage because the divorce and abortion rates will go up?

I'd really like to know what you base that on. Most of the gays and lesbians lining up to make their marriages official have been married for decades in their hearts and in the eyes of their friends and their God. They are not likely to opt for a divorce any time soon. If anything , by counting their marriages the percentage of " 'til death" marriages will go up. And I can't see any way same-sex marriage being recognized civilly will have any impact at all on the abortion rate.

 

[OphidiaPhile]

I have Christ as my shield and the Word of God as my guide. So no external would undermine my family because I can recognize and discern the bad from good because I possess the only truth in this world, which is Jesus Christ.

Gay "marriage" will hurt the dignity, structure, and chivalry of future marriage because it will cause people to have a lessened and cheapened view on marriage, which in turn will cause people to view marriage as less important and more disposable, which can only cause one thing, increased divorce and lessened family structure. Its no different when people see celebritys get married for a month and then divorced after. It puts an imprint on regular peoples minds, especially people who do not have the truth and are unable to discern between good and evil. Take a look at what Feminism, abortion, and Divorce has caused to marriage today. Its no different with gay marriage. They all devalue the dignity and structure of marriage and the proof in the pudding is the alarming divorce rates that soared once divorce, feminism and abortion became "acceptable" in society.

What a load of crap, two people that love each other do not demean marriage they only strengthen it and if it is so weak in the first place it should not exist at all. And since the highest divorce rate is amongst Christians maybe we should keep them from getting married to help lower the divorce rate.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

What a load of crap, two people that love each other do not demean marriage they only strengthen it and if it is so weak in the first place it should not exist at all. And since the highest divorce rate is amongst Christians maybe we should keep them from getting married to help lower the divorce rate.

religioustolerance is not a good site to base divorce statistics on. Secondly christian countrys like Armenia, Italy, Greece and Macedonia have the lowest divorce rates in the world. America is not a good place to base divorce statistics of professing christians on.

Well see though. Only a few states have legalized it so we will not see the full effect until later on, but it will have a great effect later on in the general collapse of marriage. Currently feminism and divorce/remarriage are the 2 biggest contributors to divorce and ruined familys today, gay marriage would probably be a distinct 4th or 5th right as of now. Especially if more states start legalizing. I worry much more about our next generations attitude will be on marriage though rather than this one. NYC and L.A. look like good future examples of the deterioration of marriage values. And how funny, both are the liberal "progressive" bastion captials of America, what a coincidence.

 

[Maren]

The earliest records of marriage are in the times of Abraham and the Egyptians. And they were all understood as between man and woman.

Eh, I'll give you points for being partially right. The first recorded marriages we have found are Egyptian, though they date from before the time of Abraham. And I've never seen anything that describes how marriages were "understood" at that time, perhaps you could give me a link to the marriage laws of Ancient Egypt?

And right from the writings of Genesis we see the plan for both man and woman. Long before any roman empire

Yet Genesis was written thousands of years after the fact, in the time of Moses (whose is credited as the author). And you have pointed out that other peoples at that time (the Egyptians) had marriage.

COuld you provide some evidence to this?

You might try Tritiya-Parkriti: People of the Third Sex to start.

No I was using this as evidence that even pagan "religions" denied same sex marriage. Which goes to prove the structure of what marriage always has been understood as.

Wait a minute. Because some pagan religions (not sure why you are using quotes) might have denied gays the right to marriage -- despite the fact we know others did not deny marriage to gays -- that means that marriage has always been the same? Sorry, that just doesn't work. In fact, it actually proves the opposite, that there has been no single definition of marriage throughout history.

Christianity is connected with the Old Covenant, which makes it alot older than you think it is. Since Christ is eternal he was here before any of us were even born. And through his lips he says:

and He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”

They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” - Matthew 19

Yet that doesn't say that it was only man and woman. It's about like saying that the Bible talks of riding on horses and donkeys and so that is the only allowable forms of transportation; cars are not allowed because the Bible doesn't talk about them. But this is beside the point, we aren't discussing what Christians believe about marriage, rather about what marriages were allowed historically.

Just because it wasn't officially defined dosen't make it so earlier. And you obviously have not read the apostolic fathers if you make comments like that. Churches did not allow second unions however because of Jesus's command about them being adultry.

Summary of​

Early Church Doctrine on Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage​

90 A.D. – 419 A.D.​

1. If a spouse persists in adulterous behavior and there is no other alternative, the marriage relationship can be terminated by the innocent party. (Hermes, Clement, Jerome, Augustine)

2. Spouses that are divorced for any reason must remain celibate and single as long as both spouses live. Remarriage is expressly prohibited. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

3. To indulge in lust with the mind is to be guilty of adultery of the heart. (Justin Martyr)

4. Whoever marries a divorced person commits adultery. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

5. Whoever contracts a second marriage, whether a Christian or not, while a former spouse lives is sinning against God. (Justin Martyr, Ambrose)

6. God does not, and the Church must not, take into account human law when it is in violation of God’s law. (Justin Martyr, Origen, Ambrose)

7. God judges motives and intentions, private thought life and actions.(Justin Martyr)

8. The marriage covenant between a man and a woman is permanent, as long as both husband and wife are alive. (Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

9. It is a serious offence against God to take another person’s spouse. (Basil)

10. The Church must charge all persons who are in possession of another living person’s former husband or wife with adultery. (Basil)

11. Sexual relations are a marital right that is limited to one’s own husband or wife. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

12. Sexual relations with one’s legitimate spouse protects from sexual sin. (Ambrose)

13. Marriage and sexual relations with a remarried spouse while a former spouse lives is the sin of adultery. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

14. It is a serious mistake to believe that it is simply one’s right to divorce a spouse and take another. Even though human law may permit such a thing, God strictly forbids it, and cannot, and will not honor it. (Clement, Origen, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

15. Anyone who follows human customs and laws regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage, instead of God’s Divine instructions should stand in fearful awe of God Himself. (Clement, 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)

17. Christians are to stop making excuses and trying to find justification for divorce and remarriage. There are no valid reasons acceptable to God. (Jerome, Augustine)

18. A marriage is for life. No matter what a spouse turns out to be, or how they may act, what they do or don’t do, or the sins they commit, the covenant remains fully in effect. A remarriage while a former spouse lives is not marriage at all, but sinful adultery. God does not divide the one flesh relationship except by physical death. (Hermes, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine)

19. Marriage is a lifelong covenant that will never be invalidated by God while both parties live. (Hermes, Justin Martyr, Clement, Origen, Basil, Ambrose, Augustine)

20.It never has been lawful, it is not now lawful, and it never will be lawful to divorce and remarry. To say and do otherwise is to worship and adopt the adulterous superstitions of a different God than the one to which we have to do. (Augustine)

And yet none of those mention marriage being a sacrament or that the church should be involved in marriage. Though it is interesting that it does condemn divorce and remarriage -- yet Christians seem to have no interest in changing those laws. In fact, as others have pointed out, Christians in the country have some of the highest divorce rates.

If marriage is a regular right then someone could marry themselves. Or a man could marry an animal, a relative, or an insect. This is obviously not the case. There are special circumstances for marriage and thus is a special right.

And false. You do realize that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are both in the First Amendment as rights, yet they have limits on them as well. For example, as a result of Westboro Baptist, many laws have passed laws prohibiting protests at funerals or too close to a cemetery. Also, there is the commonly mentioned limit on free speech that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. So, if your interpretation were correct, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are both special rights.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Eh, I'll give you points for being partially right. The first recorded marriages we have found are Egyptian, though they date from before the time of Abraham. And I've never seen anything that describes how marriages were "understood" at that time, perhaps you could give me a link to the marriage laws of Ancient Egypt?

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.​

http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt.htm​

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.​

Yet Genesis was written thousands of years after the fact, in the time of Moses (whose is credited as the author). And you have pointed out that other peoples at that time (the Egyptians) had marriage.

And as the above shows had the same views on the basics of marriage.

You might try Tritiya-Parkriti: People of the Third Sex to start.

Those are not old manuscripts like the Veda

Wait a minute. Because some pagan religions (not sure why you are using quotes) might have denied gays the right to marriage -- despite the fact we know others did not deny marriage to gays -- that means that marriage has always been the same? Sorry, that just doesn't work. In fact, it actually proves the opposite, that there has been no single definition of marriage throughout history.

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?

Yet that doesn't say that it was only man and woman. It's about like saying that the Bible talks of riding on horses and donkeys and so that is the only allowable forms of transportation; cars are not allowed because the Bible doesn't talk about them. But this is beside the point, we aren't discussing what Christians believe about marriage, rather about what marriages were allowed historically.

The bibles reference to homosexuality as sin only gives you one option left by default however.

And yet none of those mention marriage being a sacrament or that the church should be involved in marriage. Though it is interesting that it does condemn divorce and remarriage -- yet Christians seem to have no interest in changing those laws. In fact, as others have pointed out, Christians in the country have some of the highest divorce rates.

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)



And again I wouldn't use American divorce stastistics as proof from religioustolerance.com. I could give you several christian nations that have the lowest divorce rate in the world like Armenia and Macedonia.

And false. You do realize that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are both in the First Amendment as rights, yet they have limits on them as well. For example, as a result of Westboro Baptist, many laws have passed laws prohibiting protests at funerals or too close to a cemetery. Also, there is the commonly mentioned limit on free speech that you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. So, if your interpretation were correct, Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly are both special rights

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.

 

[Sycophant]

But the general consensus in history is that marriage has always been between man and woman. The gay community could care less about the structure and dignity of marriage and the effects they could cause on it by trying to change it. Show me one gay person that has second questioned what it might do to the structure and dignity of marriage down the line? You've reduced marriage to nothing more than a piece of paper and a court, and nothing more. No wonder the divorce rate is almost 50%. The first 2 big hits were divorce and then abortion. Is gay marriage gonna be strike 3? totally stripe marriage of any dignity and chivalry it has? and when the divorce rate gets to 60% what are you gonna say to over half of all the children in America with no father or mother?

Legally, a marriage is nothing more than a piece of paper and a court. The rest of it is up to the participants. If you want to have what you consider a 'Christian' marriage or something else, and you and your wife believe that, then so be it, you can have any shared understanding you want about what that means in the context of your marraige.

Abortion has sweet FA to do with marriage. In fact I'm sure there are literally dozens of things that have a more pronounced impact on marriage than abortion. As for divorce, well that clearly does have an impact on marriage, but what is your alternative - outlaw it?

The leap from letting gay couples marry to massive increase in divorce is completely without basis as far as I can see. In fact I'd argue that letting celebrities marry one another does more to cheapen marriage and promote divorce than same-sex couples will - they seems to wed and divorce a lot, and in garner a huge amount of media coverage in the process.

and that is what is so sad about it. What is the point of marriage with that type of mindset?

With that mindset there's probably little point in marriage, and I suspect people who actually feel that way won't marry. But legally (and we're talking about legal marriage here, not whatever any culture, group or church define for their own context) there is no requirement for anything really beyond mutual consent and proof of identity.

Its nothing more than a sexual lifestyle ruled by lust. You have no buisness meddling with marriage when you don't even know what marriage is in the first place.

I am married. I know at least as well as you what marriage is. And what I know is that spiritually and emotionally it is a personal thing - not ruled by courts or anything else. In fact a gay couple can right now have that same bond, it is entirely up to them, they can make a solemn commitment to one another. However that bond cannot be recognised legally in the same way ours can be.

As for being 'nothing more than a sexual lifestyle ruled by lust' - if that were true (which you'd know it wasn't if you ever actually took the time to know a gay couple) then why would they want to marry anyway? It's not like marriage does anything to improve that - in fact if popular culture is to be believed 'sexual lifestyle ruled by lust' and 'marriage' are somewhat mutually exclusive.

this has nothing to do with fearing gay people. This has to do with ruining many future familys and our next generation of children by ruining to structure of marriage and family. All this is gonna do is raise the divorce rates even higher and thus create a whole new set of problems, considering that children born out of wedlock or divorce have almost a 50% chance higher of going to prison and getting into crime.

There are heterosexual couples getting married and divorced left, right and center, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that same-sex marriage is going to do anything to impact upon that. If a couple's marriage is so weak that the unrelated union of others can have some effect upon it, then I'd suggest there are some problems with that marriage.

marriage in itself is about sacrifice and conforming to your spouses needs and wants. If your not willing to sacrifice yourself for marriage then you don't have the right mind set in the first place.

What the hell does that even mean? Marriage is very many things to different people. Sacrifice and conforming may be part of that for some people, sure. But what does "not willing to sacrifice yourself for marriage" even mean? What is it about same-sex marriage that suggests they are not willing to make all the same sacrifices that an opposite-sex couple would?