If a person wants to choose his or her life partner,he or she has the full right...be it a same sex or opposite sex person,it's their choice...none of our business.Who are we to oppose it? Who are we to interfere?
No. I won't argue; marriage is between a man and a woman. Not to be 'mean' or a 'bullying' type; or to imply that gays shouldn't be allowed to choose whom they love. In most cases, that's involuntary and unstoppable in its draw.
Go! Make your choices according to the urgings of your heart. That is not the question and I do not presume to dictate anything to anyone.
Marriage does not require love alone. It must satisfy the needs of two people. So, marriage be damned. You love someone, you go with them married or not. So. The civil union satisfies the legal part, and the relationship thrives as it did before, does now and presumably will for the rest of their lives.
Marriage never has been only between a man and a women. HIstory has proven that
Civil unions do NOT satify the legal requirements either. There are ove 1200 laws that refer to marriage only. All those laws would have to be rewritten.
Because the groups that help gays are going to sue every state that does not make it law and its not worth it to fight it. Who cares if gays get married, let them get married and make each other miserable if they want. I think its going to create a lot of litigation down the road because male homosexuals are not as stable as Lesbians. I am more comfortable with lesbians adopting children, then I am with two males adopting children. Women are natural mothers for the most part and second I feel it is extremely unnatural for two men to have a child.
Well I am hurt that everyone feels that marriage is between man and woman just cause I book says it. If i read hunger games should I start to follow what it says? Sorry but it erks me this is even a question I'm a lesbian been with the same woman for 10 years and we have a daughter who is about to turn 10 straight A's 8th grade reading level and just started the 4th grade. Most gay/lesbian children grow up to go to college and become something for themselves. So on the note of gay parents that's whack too I mean come on everyone is like support well if u support then support it all there is no difference from myself and you except the gender of the person who is laying beside you in your room in your house. Everyone's so caught up in don't let gays raise children that they forget all them children that are a ward of the state cause "straight" people can't keep there legs closed don't hate us for raising your mistakes that you clearly throw away then wait until there 20 and duck them up with I wanted you to have a better life but now that your grown I want something to do with you. Please don't say this doesn't happen cause you k ow then you would be lying
There are a lot of stable male homosexual. The problem is that they do not announce themselves like the unstable ones do.
Men are just a natural parents as women are. That is nature for heaven sake. It has always taken two adults to create a child. Men these day do take on a much bigger role in child care in the home and I see no reason why they cannot do just as good a job.
I live in Canada and in divorce cases here most parents are getting joint custody of the children these days. So the courts are recognizing the fathers role in parenting.
if I were interested, I'd debate you but you are obviously so indoctrinated with 21st century bulls#it that conversation with you would be futile. That is because you are a cretin.
Supporters of this are changing the definition of marriage that has an extremely long tradition. I see no compelling argument to go against the wisdom of the ages of all prior generations and civilizations. I believe it shows the gross arrogance of this current generation. Additionally, it is counter to the Christian faith I ascribe to. I will not agree to such a thing.
The definition of marriage has long changed. T_T and no ome is telling you to stop believing. Just don't force people to live under your religious laws. And it's not gross arrogance. things change. Things ALWAYS change. Did you know Churches used to perform gay marriages a long time ago? That's another thing.
Sadly you have NOT read any history. You have no idea what the truth is.
The church presided over same sex marriage until the mid 1400's in Europe. Same sex marriage was also common in Romans, Greeks and Chinese culture as well.
People like you are the ones trying to redefine marriage to YOUR narrow view of what you think it should be, not what it has been historically over the history of this planet.
you make outrageous claims. Prove your point. If your point is correct, then I am keeping with traditions that go back a minimum of 600 years. I'm not trying to change anything, you and your ilk are. Nice twisting of words.
Zealots are people who cannot stand the fact that others disagree with them. I answered a queston that asked my personal opionion, and zealots attack me for it.
600 years is a very short time in the history of society for mankind. Particularly is you consider that human civilization goes back more than 6,000 years.
Marriage has many meaning, even in the bible. It is extreme arrogance and self adgrandizement to assume that your belief system is more important than the beliefs of anyone else. Being christain does not give you any rights to force your ideas onto anyone!
I do not make outrageous claims at all. Simply because you are completely uneducated, does not mean that others are. History is there for everyone to read, all you have to do is pick up a book or do some research on the internet.
The zealots are those who refuse to accept that the human race is made up of diversity and that your religion is not the only belief system on the planet. Religion does not have exclusive right to marriage and never has. Marriage was around long befor christianity was and it was originally a Pagan ritual adopted by christians.
Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).
In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two...
600 years is a very short time in the history of society for mankind. Particularly is you consider that human civilization goes back more than 6,000 years.
Marriage has many meaning, even in the bible. It is extreme arrogance and self adgrandizement to assume that your belief system is more important than the beliefs of anyone else. Being christain does not give you any rights to force your ideas onto anyone!
I do not make outrageous claims at all. Simply because you are completely uneducated, does not mean that others are. History is there for everyone to read, all you have to do is pick up a book or do some research on the internet.
The zealots are those who refuse to accept that the human race is made up of diversity and that your religion is not the only belief system on the planet. Religion does not have exclusive right to marriage and never has. Marriage was around long befor christianity was and it was originally a Pagan ritual adopted by christians.
Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).
In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century Slavonic).
He found many examples of: A community gathered in a church A blessing of the couple before the altar Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages The participation of a priest The taking of the Eucharist A wedding banquet afterwards
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union,” uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell documented such sanctified unions up until the 18th century.
In late medieval France, a contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) existed for men who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse.
Other religions, such as Hinduism and some native American religions, have respect for same-sex couples weaved into their history.
When right-wing evangelical Christians talk about “traditional marriage,” there is no such thing.
"The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said. But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships." said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania .
Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian. http://theweek.com/article/in...
You eloquently make my point about how "scholarship" has corrupted thruth. There is nothing that cannot and will not cahnge with the shifting winds of Liberal ideology.
That is interesting as there are other histotians who were not gay that have written about the exact same historical evidence and come up with the exact same conclusions.
Allan Turchin is not gay. So you will have a hard time with your obsession with your biased opinion.
not everyone follows the christian faith, bub, so are not bogged down by the bigotry that lies within. i have attended many non-religious weddings and one Jedi, some of which were same sex.
Go! Make your choices according to the urgings of your heart. That is not the question and I do not presume to dictate anything to anyone.
Marriage does not require love alone. It must satisfy the needs of two people. So, marriage be damned. You love someone, you go with them married or not. So. The civil union satisfies the legal part, and the relationship thrives as it did before, does now and presumably will for the rest of their lives.
So, what's the big deal?
Civil unions do NOT satify the legal requirements either. There are ove 1200 laws that refer to marriage only. All those laws would have to be rewritten.
How ever legally gays should be able to marry.
Men are just a natural parents as women are. That is nature for heaven sake. It has always taken two adults to create a child. Men these day do take on a much bigger role in child care in the home and I see no reason why they cannot do just as good a job.
I live in Canada and in divorce cases here most parents are getting joint custody of the children these days. So the courts are recognizing the fathers role in parenting.
Traditional marriages according to the bible:
The church presided over same sex marriage until the mid 1400's in Europe. Same sex marriage was also common in Romans, Greeks and Chinese culture as well.
People like you are the ones trying to redefine marriage to YOUR narrow view of what you think it should be, not what it has been historically over the history of this planet.
Zealots are people who cannot stand the fact that others disagree with them. I answered a queston that asked my personal opionion, and zealots attack me for it.
Marriage has many meaning, even in the bible. It is extreme arrogance and self adgrandizement to assume that your belief system is more important than the beliefs of anyone else. Being christain does not give you any rights to force your ideas onto anyone!
I do not make outrageous claims at all. Simply because you are completely uneducated, does not mean that others are. History is there for everyone to read, all you have to do is pick up a book or do some research on the internet.
The zealots are those who refuse to accept that the human race is made up of diversity and that your religion is not the only belief system on the planet. Religion does not have exclusive right to marriage and never has. Marriage was around long befor christianity was and it was originally a Pagan ritual adopted by christians.
Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).
In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two...
Marriage has many meaning, even in the bible. It is extreme arrogance and self adgrandizement to assume that your belief system is more important than the beliefs of anyone else. Being christain does not give you any rights to force your ideas onto anyone!
I do not make outrageous claims at all. Simply because you are completely uneducated, does not mean that others are. History is there for everyone to read, all you have to do is pick up a book or do some research on the internet.
The zealots are those who refuse to accept that the human race is made up of diversity and that your religion is not the only belief system on the planet. Religion does not have exclusive right to marriage and never has. Marriage was around long befor christianity was and it was originally a Pagan ritual adopted by christians.
Yale historian John Richard Boswell discovered this early Christian history and wrote about it nearly 20 years ago in “Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe“ (1994).
In ancient church liturgical documents, he found the existence of an “Office of Same Sex Union” (10th and 11th century Greek) and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century Slavonic).
He found many examples of:
A community gathered in a church
A blessing of the couple before the altar
Their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages
The participation of a priest
The taking of the Eucharist
A wedding banquet afterwards
A 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union,” uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell documented such sanctified unions up until the 18th century.
In late medieval France, a contract of “enbrotherment” (affrèrement) existed for men who pledged to live together sharing ‘un pain, un vin, et une bourse’ – one bread, one wine, and one purse.
Other religions, such as Hinduism and some native American religions, have respect for same-sex couples weaved into their history.
When right-wing evangelical Christians talk about “traditional marriage,” there is no such thing.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/t...
"The same type of legal contract of the time also could provide the foundation for a variety of non-nuclear households, including arrangements in which two or more biological brothers inherited the family home from their parents and would continue to live together, Tulchin said.
But non-relatives also used the contracts. In cases that involved single, unrelated men, Tulchin argues, these contracts provide “considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships." said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania .
Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian.
http://theweek.com/article/in...
http://www.traditioninaction....
http://www.fordham.edu/halsal...
Allan Turchin is not gay. So you will have a hard time with your obsession with your biased opinion.