Civil unions > gay marriage - Political Forum

Wolfman · #1 (**permalink**) 04-30-2007, 03:51 PM

Marriage was created since the beginning of time for man and a woman
civil unions are okay but not marriage

Cicronio · #2 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Marriage was created since the beginning of time for man and a woman civil unions are okay but not marriage

I respond: The above warble hasn't a note of truth to it but rather is the feeble, desperate swan song of many a homophobe who think heterocentric couplings by way of legal documentation and fairy tale ceremony is the be all end all purpose of creation.

Problematics of the Pro-Gay-Marriage Amendment Arguments (regarding Indiana SJR07)

"...The contention by the pro-family groups is that marriage as we know it today in the United States is the way marriage has always been and it is the way marriage should remain forever more. Bypassing the question of how marriage should look forever more, the question of whether marriage has always been this way is a question of historical fact, one that can be verified or factually refuted. In this case, it can easily be factually refuted.

Some studies estimate that polygyny (multiple wives) has been the primary form of marriage in up to 83% of the cultures in history, with only 16% being monogamy.45 Most marriages in history are characterized not in terms of romance and free-choice as we think of it in the United States, but as economic transactions: the selling of the daughter to the husband for a dowry or bridewealth.46 Similarly, arranged marriage characterizes most "marriages" in history. None of these types of marriage, which are the true representations of "how marriage has always been," are the types of marriages that the pro-amendment groups are attempting to re-establish. Rather, what they are calling "marriage as it always has been," is really an attempt to reinforce the concept of marriage that they have grown up with and that became idolized and stereotyped in the media during post World-War II culture in the 1950's. While it is normal for people to want culture to adhere to the patterns of living with which one has become comfortable, it is ill-informed to assume, and subsequently claim, that this particular way of life characterizes all cultures in history.

It is more curious that the pro-family groups are using "the church" and claiming the long tradition of "church weddings" in defense of their positions, when in fact, the church has had an ambivalent relationship with the institution of marriage throughout its history. Wardle refers to marriage as we currently know it, as having been around for a mere 200 years.47 Prior to that, the biggest step in the direction of the "conjugal marriage" as we know it today occurred when Pope Alexander III (1159-89 CE) issued a series of decretals on marriage, in which the church started to officially endorse the concept of marriage as we understand it, the free choice of the husband and wife.48 It wasn't until 1215, during the 4th Lateran Council, that the church declared marriage a sacrament.49 This arrangement, at least in practice, preceded the church's decretals, and that marriage in this form "owed as much to the traditions of the German tribes as to the practices of the Roman Empire, and it was from the middle of the eight century AD that it emerged in a recognizable form." 50..."

Actually, not only have homosexual marriages and same-sex civil unions been an accepted part of several civilizations throughout history but same-sex rites of union have been practiced in the primitive Christian church as well as by the very same Catholic Church which has of late been doing a lot of squawking against homosexual marriage as documentary proof from the archives of very Vatican reveal.

Faithful to the Truth: The Testimony of Sacred Tradition..

"...It is reasonable to interpret these rites as being homo-gender marriages because of the context in which they were found. Very commonly they appear together with related rituals, with the ceremonies listed in the following order:

Ceremony for a hetero-gender betrothal
Ceremony for a first hetero-gender marriage
Ceremony for a second hetero-gender marriage (with less emphasis on procreation)
Ceremony for a homo-gender union

Moreover, they share some of the characteristics found in hetero-gender marriage. For example, they regularly include some of the following:

The couple standing together at the Altar
Hands joined
Blessing by the priest
Prayers of promise of lifelong fidelity
Walking around the altar
Comparable use of litanies
Crowning
Sharing Communion
Banquet for friends and family afterwards
Monks were forbidden use of the rite
What are two lay (wo)men doing in a Catholic or Orthodox Church with their hands joined, or holding crowns over each other's head, at either a Communion service of the presanctified, or a Eucharist: asking for "unashamed fidelity and sincere love", or that "they be united in perfect love and inseparable life" or to be granted "the grace to love each other in joy without injury or hatred all the days of their life"? Two summary examples follow:

BELGRADE [date uncertain; before the 18th century: Serbian Slavonic]

The priest shall place the right hand of the elder upon the holy Gospel and upon that of the younger. Then: Blessed be God, now and forever and ever. Amen

Then shall the priest take the holy belt and tie it around them. And they that are about to be joined shall hold the holy belt in their left hands.

O Lord, Our God, who hast given unto us the promise of salvation accept Thou these thy two servants, N. and N. who love each other with a love of the spirit, and have desired to come into thy holy church, and grant unto them hope, unashamed faithfulness and true love.

...Thou also didst deem it proper for the holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus to be united. Bless Thou these thy servants. Grant unto them grace and prosperity, and faith and love; let them love each other without envy and without temptation all the days of their life.

For these thy servants [and] for their being joined unto each other, we beseech Thee, O Lord. That the Lord our God unite them in perfect love and inseparable life, we beseech Thee, O Lord. For the presanctified gift of the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they receive it without sin and that it preserve their union without envy, we beseech Thee, O Lord.
[The First Epistle of] the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians .... Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not love, I am as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

Then: Peace be with you. Then shall the priest kiss them. And the two that are to be joined shall kiss each other.

And he shall dismiss them.

SINAI 966 [13th century: Greek]

Those intending to be united shall come before the priest. shall place his hand on the Gospel, and the second on the hand of the first.

Lord our God and ruler, who didst commend the union of thy holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus: do Thou vouchsafe unto these thy servants grace to love one another and abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives.

Grant them unashamed faithfulness, true love.

Accept now these Thy servants to be united in spirit and faith to prosper in virtue and justice and in sincere love.

that they be joined together more in spirit than in flesh.

And they shall kiss the holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded.

This liturgy is particularly important for its prayer that the two men should be joined together "more in spirit than in flesh". This collect only appears in one other manuscript, a tenth Century Greek office of same gender union. "Joined in flesh" is a phrase used with reference to marriage both in Genesis [Gen 2:24] and by Jesus [Mat 19:5]. It is not clear whether it refers to the physical coming together of sexual congress or alternately the joining of familial kinship relations by the contract of marriage. Whatever it signifies, here we have a clear use of the very term in connection with a same gender union. Such a petition is exactly what one would expect if the liturgy was a celebration of a romanto-erotic union between Christians, for whom embodiment is important; but the spiritual more so..."

And the phrase "unto death do us part" which brings an additional flood of sentimental tears to those attending a heterosexual marriage seems not to have been contemplated by the earliest of Christians as evidenced by the following link on same-sex burials.

Valerie Abrahamsen, "Burials In Greek Macedonia: Possible Evidence for Same-Sex Committed Relationships in Early Christianity"

"...BURIALS of pairs of men and pairs of women in ecclesiastical contexts from the early Byzantine era, along with more expected burials of married couples, families and random groups, have been discovered in excavations at Philippi and Edessa in northern Greece. In the dig literature, the archaeologists and commentators passed over the same-sex pairs quickly, with no speculation as to what they might represent, not even intimating that these pairs were siblings, mother/daughter or father/son groupings, adoptions, people who may have died at roughly the same time or anything else equally commonplace.

Earlier in Philippi's history, a female "pair," Euodia and Syntyche, were active in the church and mentioned in St. Paul's letter to the Philippians (4:2-3). Were those two women "merely" strong leaders in the Philippian church of the 50s C.E.2 or a same-sex committed couple?

The latter possibility was first raised in 1990 by Mary Rose D'Angelo, who commented, "Evodia and Syntyche can be seen as a missionary couple, partners in the mission, rather than as individual members of Paul's missionary team. They may in fact have been independent of Paul....

Second, ...the 'religious conflict' [mentioned in Phil 4:2] is a dispute not between Euodia and Syntyche but between Paul on the one hand and the two women missionaries on the other."3 This tantalizing theory lends support to the possibility that the Byzantine burial evidence demonstrates the existence of same-sex committed couples in the early church.

In addition to D'Angelo, other research on homosexuality in antiquity has recently been published, including the late John Boswell's Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe 4 and Love Between Women by Bernadette Brooten. While Brooten considers both literary and archaeological evidence in an analysis of female homoeroticism in antiquity, most studies have relied almost exclusively on literary sources and have focused on male sexuality.5

At Philippi and Edessa the primary evidence for same-sex unions from the Byzantine period is archaeological and epigraphic. How can the literary evidence, the work of art historians and the contributions of D'Angelo, Boswell, Brooten and others shed light on the material evidence from Philippi and Edessa? Were there same-sex couples in northern Greece in the early Byzantine era and even earlier? These and other questions will be considered in the following pages.

The Evidence from Philippi and Edessa (Macedonia)

THE relevant inscriptions from Philippi are shown in Table 1. In four cases the evidence for same-sex burials is unmistakable: two pairs of women (Euodiana and Dorothea, Pancharia and Posidonia) and two pairs of men (Gourasios and Konstantios, Faustinos and Donatos). In two other cases, because of damage to the inscriptions themselves, the names are not clear. In the case of Kyriakos and Nikan[__], some archaeologists preferred reading "Kyriakos and Nikandra"—male and female—but in the case of Alexandra and Glukeria, both female. In the example of Kyriakos and Nikan[__], the stone was so badly damaged that other interpreters conjectured either Nikandras or Nikanoros. The commentators did not indicate their reasons for deciding one gender over the other in either case.

Table 1. Possible Same-Sex Inscriptions from Philippi

"Sleeping place of Euodiana and Dorothea." Fifth century. From Extra-Muros Basilica.6

"Sleeping place belonging to Posidonia, deacon, and Pancharia, very humble canoness." Fourth to fifth century. Marble stele from the east side of Philippi, now lost.7

"Sleeping place of Alexandra and Glukeria (or Glukerios)." Fifth to sixth century. From Basilica B (Direkler).8

"Sleeping place of the most pious presbyters, Faustinos and Donatos, of the holy catholic and apostolic church of the Philippians." Fourth century. From Extra-Muros basilica; two skeletons found.9

"Sleeping place of the most devoted presbyters, Gourasios and Konstantios, resting in Christ, 14th indiction." Fourth to sixth century. From Extra-Muros Basilica; large number of skeletons and 18 skulls found.10

"Sleeping place of Kyriakos and Nikandra (or Nikandros or Nikanoros)." Fourth to fifth century. From Basilica B (Direkler).11

The context of these inscriptions is critical: all were burials, most in the floors of two of the city's six early Byzantine basilicas..."

Hmmm, the above archaeological evidence bring to mind a passage from the Bible:

Luke 19:40 "...if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out..."

Case adjourned awaiting further squawking to the contrary to the above documentary evidence since we suspect rebuttal containing verifiably credible documentary evidence challenging the validity of same will not be produced and presented for our scrutiny.

top gun · #3 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Marriage was created since the beginning of time for man and a woman
civil unions are okay but not marriage

The definition over history has varied from cult to cult... religion to religion. For instance at one time Mormons held that multiple wives was a totally acceptable form of marriage. And there are even more bazaar examples over time.

This whole cultural debate is over semantics. What you name something. It's about religion holding a word name to itself. Whether you call a rabbit a rabbit or a bunny it's still the same thing. A couple who loves each other and lives together in a totally monogamous relationship want to be called married. They want health, custody and death benefits brought by such a recognized union.

I not being gay don't see the problem of calling such a union a civil union... as long as all the benefits and divorce risks are the same. However that's not to say that if I were gay I might not find the professed domination over a word "marriage" by religious groups as troubling.

We might be surprised. If gay marriage was allowed on exactly equal terms as traditional marriage with the divorce factor and all it might not become as popular as one might think.

Ygorl · #4 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfman

Marriage was created since the beginning of time for man and a woman
civil unions are okay but not marriage

This is exactly it.

Those that would like to completely destroy the institution of family and marriage by unnecessarily "redefining" the meaning of the word, will call us names and try to belittle and dismiss us as idiots.

Get used to it. That's the only ammunition they truly have.

Ygorl · #5 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cicronio

I respond: The above warble hasn't a note of truth to it but rather is the feeble, desperate swan song of many a homophobe who think heterocentric couplings by way of legal documentation and fairy tale ceremony is the be all end all purpose of creation.

.................................................. ..................................................
................ scrutiny.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Who is it that's "squawking" and "warbling" ? Looks like almost an entire PAGE of "squawking" and "warbling" from YOU

Oh, don't forget to tell us we're "homophobes"

JackMallory · #6 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane

Yadda yadda yadda.

Who is it that's "squawking" and "warbling" ? Looks like almost an entire PAGE of "squawking" and "warbling" from YOU

Oh, don't forget to tell us we're "homophobes"

Agreed to many words.
I think gay people should be able to be "married" just like everyone else no changing words just married.

Hotduck · #7 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 01:56 PM

I’m all for civil unions

But Marriage between man and a woman is one of things that make America strong. And I just worry about the USA becoming too secular

Cicronio · #8 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Those that would like to completely destroy the institution of family and marriage by unnecessarily "redefining" the meaning of the word, will call us names and try to belittle and dismiss us as idiots.

Get used to it. That's the only ammunition they truly have.

I respond: Same old squawking and griping. No scientific facts to back up their inane babbling.

Gollygeewillerkers, if it is true, as certain homophobic elements claim, that heterosexual marriage is threatened by homosexual marriage, then, the bonds of mutual affection and loyalty between married men and women are awfully tenuous which seems to cast a doubtful suspicion on the strength of heterosexual bonding. Down right pitiful.

Actually, heterosexual couples do a pretty good job of destroying the institutions of family and marriage all by themselves without the need of any help from homosexual couples.

Case in point, it's the Baaaaaahble Belt, infamous for its homophobia, incest, congenital abnormalities, domestic violence, matrimonial infidelity, fornication (sinful cohabitation of unmarried men & women) fanatical fundamentalist Christian mentality, that has the highest rate of divorce from sea to shining sea.

MORAL HYPOCRISY IN THE BIBLE BELT

"...BIBLE BELT IS A DIVORCE BELT:
NCPA - Social Issues - Bible Belt Leads U.S. In Divorces

Aside from the quickie-divorce Mecca of Nevada, no region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt."

Bible Belt Couples 'Put Asunder' More, Despite New Efforts. Highest rate of increase of cohabitation:

"The census found that in the 1990's, the number of unmarried couples living together jumped by 97 percent in Oklahoma, 125 percent in Arkansas and 123 percent in Tennessee. These increases in the buckle of the Bible Belt are well above the 72 percent increase in unmarried couples that the census found in the nation as a whole."

"A posse of public health nurses, social workers, pastors and extension agents has been deputized to bring down a divorce rate that in Oklahoma, as in several states across the Bible Belt, is among the highest in the country."
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas.

"Barna released the results of their poll about divorce on 1999-DEC-21. 1 They had interviewed 3,854 adults from the 48 contiguous states. The sampling error is within two percentage points.

The survey found:
--11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
--25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
--Divorce rates among conservative Christians were much higher than for other faith groups.

George Barna, president and founder of Barna Research Group, commented:
"While it may be alarming to discover that born again Christians are more likely than others to experience a divorce

, that pattern has been in place for quite some time..."

Oh, yes, honey, little Baby Jesus sure done blessed them redneck hetties in the Baaaaaaaaaaahble Belt. Yahooooooooo! Let me slither into mah best Sunday-go-to-Meeting outfit and bang that blessed tambourine. Hala Lew Yeah!

libertarian123 · #9 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotduck

I’m all for civil unions

But Marriage between man and a woman is one of things that make America strong. And I just worry about the USA becoming too secular

How is gay marriage going to weaken society?

Also, just because a nation is secular, it doesn't mean that it's morals will be compromise. There are plenty of atheists who are good decent people and plenty of deep, religious people who murder in the name of God.

Cicronio · #10 (**permalink**) 05-06-2007, 06:36 PM

And another thang, Clem...

Speaking of athiests, they have the lowest divorce rates in the U.S.

http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_o...rld/BIBLEBELT/

"...From the USA Today article:

In the USA, 8.1% of coupled households are made up of unmarried, heterosexual partners. Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married, Popenoe says.

The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.

"The United States has the weakest families in the Western world because we have the highest divorce rate and the highest rate of solo parenting," Popenoe says.

As you can see, the most religious part of the USA has the weakest families in the USA. The USA has the weakest families in the western world. And we play religion like it makes a difference. It does not..."