Kasz216 said:
Grey Acumen said:
Kasz216 said:
Grey Acumen said:
That's a cute little tidbit, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the point I made. If there is or ever was a constitutional right to drugs, it was never covered by the constitutional right to bear arms. The issue is with the attempt to legally redefine a term that was established through religion. And if you're tryign to argue based on something that was established during teh roman era, please point me out to where two men or women were actually "married" and not just living together. I don't recall examples of any official ceremony being used to celebrate the union between two people who could not have children, as the typical purpose of weddings like that is to ensure that the children have both the father and mother working together to raise them. Personally, I don't even mind if gay people call it marriage, but it does need to be established that the legal recognition of a gay union does not require any religion to recognize it. |
Sure look at Marcus Aurillius Antonious for an example. However most people didn't have ceremonys in ancient Greece and Rome. Ceremony's weren't seen as needed to legalize a marriage. Only nobles usually had an actual wedding ceremony. It's hard to even point to greek and roman ceremonies because of this. Let alone same sex ones. The only "problems" lie with the fact that we legalize marriages and bestow so many rights on married couples for no real reason.
The fact that they had to make gay marriage illegal would likely mean it was legal, no? I mean the law specifically said "Gay people can no longer get married." (Paraphrasing obviously.) I've heard Marcuus Martialias talks about such marriages in his poems as well. |
No, not really. If you had a couple thousand people badgering Pizza Hut to serve burgers, and they then deem it necessary to put up a sign saying "We don't serve burgers" that would hardly be proof that pizza hut used to serve burgers.
And I have met a few unpleasant gay people, but I've met just as many perfectly reasonable gay people as well, so I don't see that being connected to sexual orientation any more than it is to race or gender. |
Well either way, Gay marriages are a historically recorded fact. Believe it or don't... it won't change the fact.
Your wrong, and you just don't want to admit it because it would change you're preconceived ideas. |
What part exactly are you claiming that I'm wrong? and even moreso where are you claiming that I am refusing to admit to it. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic, and not even concerning myself over the issue the argumetn is surrounding.
You even pointed out yourself that having ceremonies in greece and rome were uncommon, and when I looked up the Marcus guy, I didn't see anything about a gay marriage mentioned anywhere in the thing. On top of that, I've already pointed out numerous times that I don't really CARE if gays have a legally recognized union, I'm just pointing out that this cannot be carried over to attempt to make religions follow suit. So I'm not quite sure what your issue is.
Also, why the constant going back and editing your posts just to add crap? I mean, you originally started off with the part I have underlined here at the end, and then you added the other stuff afterward. It served no purpose other than attempting to undermine perfectly valid points with the claim of "preconceived notions." Yeah, I have this preconceived notion that 1 + 1 = 2, all my math must be wrong now. I'm not really concerned by it, it's just that it seems unecessary to add all that extra stuff when the underlined part would have been plenty to show that you were confident in your own view as being correct.
To restate my view, it makes no point for there to be a religious recognition of two people who sleep together and nothing else happens from it. There's nothing to protect, there is no effect on society. They sleep together, it affects those two people and that's it. There's no reason for any ceremony with the purpose of binding those two people together. If there were ceremonies performed, it was just as likely that it was more of a celebration of the event than any implied contract.
The only time it affects the rest of society is when there is a child, a child that will grow up and become a part of society based on the initial guidance offered by those two involved.
For those claiming grounds of sterility should have the same effects, get over yourself. It's not like they had tests for that at the time this type of thing was established, and since with most jewish/christian faiths also preached abstinence before marriage, there's really no way to find out until AFTER they're married.
Even then, the man and woman can at least claim the intention to bear and raise a child together(sterility isn't neccesarily absolute), which is not something two men or two women can really attemt without some severe tinkering.
So like I said before, go ahead and allow gay civil unions, just stay the hell away from the religious side of things. That's up to the church and the church alone. If you find a church that supports that, go right ahead, but don't go attempting to force the issue, and don't go bashing them just cause you think they're wrong when there are perfectly valid reasons for what they do.
Oh, and before someone attempts to get cute with their arguments, no, I specifically state VALID reasons for what they do. Killing someone just because of sexual orientation does not have any validity.
