(May 23, 2012 at 2:25 am)Aiza Wrote:

(May 22, 2012 at 10:37 am)LarissaAnn Wrote: Sure they might not have had same sex marriage in their society, but it was not for reasons of "preserving the sanctity of marriage" like you're trying to claim. Same sex marriage didn't exist in their society because marriage to Greek men was simply a necessary institution to where they had the convenience of their wives to run their home, bear and raise their children while they, the men, ran the society and oftentimes continued getting male booty (pun intended) on the side.

That was my point, LarissaAnn. If "doesn't believe in gay marriage" means you are persecuting gay people, than the Greeks persecuted homosexuals in spite of having, by any measure, a very gay friendly society. Get it?

You can't really compare an Ancient marriage or Ancient society to our times today, it's a weak argument.

Marriage in OUR times and certainly in religious terms, means a sacred bonding of two people as one or in less religious terms, two people sharing their lives together in loving companionship.

The Ancient Greeks did NOT see marriage this way.

You can't call it persecution when the role of "spouse" was infinitely below in status to the role of a "man" as it was in Ancient Greece. Why would an Ancient Greek man choose to be a spouse of another man when a spouse was seen as the lowly home keeper? It's better than to be both men of status and mutual companions, while your wives were at home keeping your house like they were supposed to be. If anyone was persecuted against in Ancient Greece it was obviously women, not gays.

NOW in our society today where much has changed over the centuries, a marriage is formed and kept on the basis of companionship and love, it IS persecution to demand laws enacted to prevent two people of the same sex who love each other from unifying that relationship as a marriage, just because a specific group objects on a religious standpoint. Christianity did not invent marriage, it invented CHRISTIAN marriage. As seen in the Ancient Greek example there have been many different types of marriage throughout the years in different religions, customs, and locations. Same sex couples aren't asking to have a CATHOLIC marriage (or in most cases even a Christian one) they're just asking to have the GOVERNMENT recognize their relationship as a form of marriage for the reasons of equal acceptance in society and for the legal reasons that go with joining your life with another person's. Religion has nothing to do with it.

I know you Catholics (and non-Catholic Christians too) dream of a world where everyone on Earth will convert to your religion and the world will become one great big Catholic family unified in one faith because Jesus said go make diciples etc. etc. but that's just not going to happen for MANY reasons...most importantly that everyone has the right to choose the faith (or none at all) that they feel in their heart and if that faith and customs, ways and beliefs don't match yours, get over it!

So until you stop trying to get the government to make laws that FORCE your morals onto others people, especially those who don't follow your faith, (and stop the MANY MANY other cruelties the Catholic church has committed over recent years) then people are always going to have a beef with your fatih. In the same sex marriage arena, Catholicism's actions and protests towards good people who just want to live their lives together is mean, narcissistic, and hurtful and a FAR cry from the grace and love that religions claim to have and practice.

(May 23, 2012 at 2:41 am)Minimalist Wrote: Discredited? Hardly. The documents are there and herr von popenfuhrer is up to his smelly nazi armpits in it. It says far more about you that you will dismiss any evidence that your godboy on earth is a fucking pedophile.

If you can show me any documents which actually show that the Pope was aware of any abuse during this time, then please share. Until then all you have is a letter in which he allows a priest to stay in his diocese (not minister mind) so he can undergo counseling.

(May 23, 2012 at 10:16 am)LarissaAnn Wrote: You can't really compare an Ancient marriage or Ancient society to our times today, it's a weak argument.

Marriage in OUR times and certainly in religious terms, means a sacred bonding of two people as one or in less religious terms, two people sharing their lives together in loving companionship.

I think that marriage in "our times" is currently undergoing a bit of a change itself. For some people, marriage means "sharing your life together" and is essentially just a very expensive romantic gesture with tax benefits. For others, it is about the creation of family and new life. I think saying that those who ascribe to the latter must be "persecuting" those who ascribe to the former is flawed, as flawed as trying to say the ancient Greeks were "persecuting" gays for also having another definition of marriage..

I do understand your point wrt secular vs. religious definitions, though even then this former definition is not limited to the religious. Even nations with hardline state atheism had no gay marriage (or still don't as the case may be). Its a matter of shifting definitions, but I don't think that shift has already occurred.

(May 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Aiza Wrote: I think that marriage in "our times" is currently undergoing a bit of a change itself. For some people, marriage means "sharing your life together" and is essentially just a very expensive romantic gesture with tax benefits. For others, it is about the creation of family and new life. I think saying that those who ascribe to the latter must be "persecuting" those who ascribe to the former is flawed, as flawed as trying to say the ancient Greeks were "persecuting" gays for also having another definition of marriage..

Well, just like marriage that's because you have incorrect definitions stored in your head.

per-se-cute Wrote:- verb (used with object), -cut·ed, -cut·ing.
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.

Seems to qualify to me. Let's also add the anti-sodomy laws, 'cannot mention homosexuality in public schools', 'don't ask, don't tell', 'gays can't adopt kids', etc. Then again, the prevalence of such laws and pressures to enact such laws in states that are most outspoken on the topic and have higher conservative religious populations is just random correlation, right? This is an example of people trying to control private, personal behavior through laws.

Persecute.

(May 23, 2012 at 8:47 pm)Aiza Wrote:

(May 23, 2012 at 10:16 am)LarissaAnn Wrote: You can't really compare an Ancient marriage or Ancient society to our times today, it's a weak argument.

Marriage in OUR times and certainly in religious terms, means a sacred bonding of two people as one or in less religious terms, two people sharing their lives together in loving companionship.

I think that marriage in "our times" is currently undergoing a bit of a change itself. For some people, marriage means "sharing your life together" and is essentially just a very expensive romantic gesture with tax benefits. For others, it is about the creation of family and new life. I think saying that those who ascribe to the latter must be "persecuting" those who ascribe to the former is flawed, as flawed as trying to say the ancient Greeks were "persecuting" gays for also having another definition of marriage..

I do understand your point wrt secular vs. religious definitions, though even then this former definition is not limited to the religious. Even nations with hardline state atheism had no gay marriage (or still don't as the case may be). Its a matter of shifting definitions, but I don't think that shift has already occurred.

You know I agree with you, different people view marriage differently and perhaps as a result a persons own marriage is the one and only marriage they should worry about. It's flawed, as you say, to say that two consenting adults of the same gender are wrong or worse immoral for being in love and being united in marriage when their union does not harm or affect anyone outside of it at all.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to think it's wrong as according to your faith; I still don't have a lot of respect for your faith because it holds that belief (and many other messed up ones in my opinion), but you are in the right to feel and follow your own faith. For you if marriage is for the purpose of forming and creating a family, that's fine, you enjoy your marriage, celebrate it in the marriages of your friends and family who believe the same.

Where I find it persecution is when you or your faith force others who DON'T believe as you believe to obey your faith's laws. You reduce their relationship (which to most people, gay or straight, is often the most beautiful thing in their life) to "wrong," not worthy of raising a family, immoral, etc. etc. Like I said before, it's mean and incredibly hurtful and furthermore something that won't affect you WHATSOEVER if it were allowed. It's not the belief that's wrong, but the actions you take toward others because of those beliefs.

(May 24, 2012 at 11:10 am)LarissaAnn Wrote: You know I agree with you, different people view marriage differently and perhaps as a result a persons own marriage is the one and only marriage they should worry about. It's flawed, as you say, to say that two consenting adults of the same gender are wrong or worse immoral for being in love and being united in marriage when their union does not harm or affect anyone outside of it at all.

I don't think they are immoral or wrong for "being in love" but society sets limits on marriage all the time. Certain types of relative cannot get married if they are too closely related, for example. We banned polygamy even though you can easily be in love with multiple people at once. The ranges for adulthood vary as well--some places a 16 year old can get married with parental consent. Do you also see all those limits as "incredibly hurtful" or even persecution? This is an honest question, because it is something I think about myself. I'm not even trying to debate you here, just trying to understand what are the limits of a pluralistic society.

Currently some of society sees marriage as a romantic gesture between 2 consenting adults, and other people see it as something more. You seem ok with the ancient Greeks having a different definition of marriage, and you even set your own definition: "two consenting adults in love". A lot falls outside of this, and none of it would (directly) affect you either.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: I don't think they are immoral or wrong for "being in love" but society sets limits on marriage all the time.

Society also persecuted people all the time.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: Certain types of relative cannot get married if they are too closely related, for example.

In most of the free world they can. Also, if they get married in TN and travel back to OH, OH has to recognize it by law. This applies to all marriages I am familiar with*.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: We banned polygamy even though you can easily be in love with multiple people at once.

This is also not rationally moral, and largely because polygamy was associated with non-Christian marriages.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: The ranges for adulthood vary as well--some places a 16 year old can get married with parental consent.

Said sixteen year old can also travel to MS, marry, and return to NE where the marriage has to be legally recognized. Again, all legal marriages are recognized in all states*.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: Do you also see all those limits as "incredibly hurtful" or even persecution? This is an honest question, because it is something I think about myself. I'm not even trying to debate you here, just trying to understand what are the limits of a pluralistic society.

The difference is one is trying to legally limit the choices adults can make. Setting an age limit is rational as it applies to everyone and limits who may be granted the right to form an agreement/bond/sex pact (like, may drink at age 21). Setting limits on who someone can marry is a blatant attempt at controlling the choices made (like, only men can drink beer and only women can drink wine). This does not treat people equally.

*except gay marriage. See persecution.

Let's stop trying to pretend, as I've grown sick of having this idiotic conversation the public has been pretending to be tolerant of, myself included. If this offends you, I'm sorry. I know Catholics that think their church is run by bigots. Agreeing with your church doesn't make their opinions right.

We decided inter-racial marriage is OK. It is not anyone else's right to tell me I couldn't marry my wife of another race. These laws are nothing other than base, anti-libertarian BS written because some conservatives are afraid of other people they don't know doing things they are unfamiliar with because their entire self-identity is based on sitting in a small building and socially masturbating their self-esteem over and over.

Other people live differently and by trying to force them not to, you are persecuting them. Deal with it.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:28 am)Aiza Wrote: I don't think they are immoral or wrong for "being in love" but society sets limits on marriage all the time. Certain types of relative cannot get married if they are too closely related, for example. We banned polygamy even though you can easily be in love with multiple people at once. The ranges for adulthood vary as well--some places a 16 year old can get married with parental consent. Do you also see all those limits as "incredibly hurtful" or even persecution? This is an honest question, because it is something I think about myself. I'm not even trying to debate you here, just trying to understand what are the limits of a pluralistic society.

Currently some of society sees marriage as a romantic gesture between 2 consenting adults, and other people see it as something more. You seem ok with the ancient Greeks having a different definition of marriage, and you even set your own definition: "two consenting adults in love". A lot falls outside of this, and none of it would (directly) affect you either.

I said it's flawed for you to say they're wrong or immoral to be in love and united in marriage, the marriage bit being the key part there not just in love.

I know those who protest say it's "not a sin to be gay" just not fine that they're married and it's that "not fine that their married part" that's straight up persecution because it would affect you in no way at all personally if they were married. Your marriage would still be pure by your faith's definition and your faith would still endure through it's followers and leaders; it would offend you to know it's out there but it wouldn't hurt you. While at the same time your preventing same sex couples from getting married hurts them and affects their ENTIRE life, not to mention their feelings and self worth.

The incest point is a good point, but that's legitimate I think because there has been substantial proof over the years that children born from closely related parents are prone to genetic defects. There is DIRECT HARM that can come from an incestuous marriage; the only harm that can come from a same sex union is offending those who object to it.

As for polygamy, you may have a point there, but even with same sex marriage I see it as if they're not harming anyone, then who is to tell them they can't do it? Just like that show Sister Wives, it's an unorthodox lifestyle, one I'd never want for myself, but I would never dream of going into that family's household and telling them they have to break apart the love and family they've built together over the years just because I find it different to what I would do. What right would I have to do that?

What are the limits of a society you ask? In this case I would say so long as no one is physically or emotionally hurting themselves or others in their pursuit of happiness in their own homes and private lives, then the government and people have no right to tell them otherwise.

I'm not quite sure I understand your last paragraph there. You said a lot falls outside of a person's or even societies definition of marriage and that wouldn't affect me at all either, I'm not sure what all "falls outside" it that you're talking about? Can you specify a little more please? I suppose same sex couples marrying doesn't affect me personally in a way as I'm straight, but I have many gay and lesbian friends and I see a lot of beauty and love in their relationships, it's a unique and different form of love but just as valid and healthy and normal as any straight relationship and it hits me personally in my feelings to see that discriminated against and how I would feel if someone told me I couldn't legally marry my boyfriend one day. That's how it affects me, through empathy and common decency and care for the feelings of others.

And something in your defense, with Obama's birth control mandate. I personally find the Catholic church's stance on birth control one of the things about it that infuriates me the most about it. HOWEVER, though I think Obama's idea is good on paper and though I WISH the Catholic Church would change its stance on birth control because it's pisses me off, I don't however think it should be FORCED on the church through law. If I can swallow my pride, live and let live even when I strongly object to the main source of the issue, can't you consider it too?

In the United States, LBGT couples are free practice the sacrement of marriage within denominations that allow the practive. Although those marriages are not legally recongnized by the states, in most states civil unions between LBGT couples enjoy the same legal benefits as those of heterosexual marriages. There is no real civil rights issue. Civil unions and tradional marriages are equal before the law.

Nevertheless, same sex marriage presents a number of problems. First, American culture has always defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Tweeking that definition could reopen our historical fight against polygamy, only this time with Mulsims instead of Mormons. I consider that a very real possibility.

Also, common law practices that have grown around the traditional understanding of marriage, like divorce, child custody, and inheritence, cannot easily accommodate alternate definitions. For example, if a man and a woman room togethor for 7 years then common law considers them married. While it’s unlikely, in theory the 7-year roommate of another man, could claim inheretance rights to the other man’s property over the objections of blood relatives.

Finally, govenments can and should recognize differneces between different types of relationships when they affect society in different ways. Tax laws recognize this distinction because heterosexual couples often produce children and there is a compelling governemet interest in recognizing the uniqueness of this situation.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: In the United States, LBGT couples are free practice the sacrement of marriage within denominations that allow the practive. Although those marriages are not legally recongnized by the states, in most states civil unions between LBGT couples enjoy the same legal benefits as those of heterosexual marriages. There is no real civil rights issue. Civil unions and tradional marriages are equal before the law.

On a local level, but not a federal level. This overlooks over 1000 different federal laws that affect the couple in the relationship. Such laws are laws states cannot affect. Immigration. Taxes. Inter-state custody disputes. The list goes on. So, no, they aren't equal.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Nevertheless, same sex marriage presents a number of problems. First, American culture has always defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Tweeking that definition could reopen our historical fight against polygamy, only this time with Mulsims instead of Mormons. I consider that a very real possibility.

This is a slippery slope argument and applies to all liberties if true. Luckily it isn't. Guns are legal. Bazookas aren't. It's the role of SCOPUS and the courts to define specific boundaries as they change and deal with said issues on a case-by-case basis. Overall they do an adequate job.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Also, common law practices that have grown around the traditional understanding of marriage, like divorce, child custody, and inheritence, cannot easily accommodate alternate definitions. For example, if a man and a woman room togethor for 7 years then common law considers them married. While it’s unlikely, in theory the 7-year roommate of another man, could claim inheretance rights to the other man’s property over the objections of blood relatives.

The same argument would apply to roommates of a different sex. Why not make marriage illegal? Because this is a challenge to the boundaries of common law legal disputes, not the civil liberties of adults.

(May 25, 2012 at 12:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Finally, govenments can and should recognize differneces between different types of relationships when they affect society in different ways. Tax laws recognize this distinction because heterosexual couples often produce children and there is a compelling governemet interest in recognizing the uniqueness of this situation.

The real benefit is not child bearing, it is the stability of the household. Dependent persons (unemployed, sick, minors, etc.) cost money.

Stable households relieve the government of a very significant amount of welfare oversight. This is the real reason spouses get a tax break: if they get a little more money now, they can take better care of the children and one another and it relieves a greater cost/benefit burden off of the government. It is in many of the legal discussions on the topic.