On Gays, Marriage, and Lent

[glockmail]

lol good. Like I said a long time ago, all you need is some good looking guy to show you what real lovin' is all about and make you breakfast the next day and you'll forget all about this lesbo trip that you're on. :poke:

[Noir]

Like I said a long time ago, all you need is some good looking guy to show you what real lovin' is all about and make you breakfast the next day and you'll forget all about this lesbo trip that you're on. :poke:


And all you need is some good lookng guy to show you what real loving is all about and make you breakfast the next day and you'll forget all about this hetro trip you're on :poke:

[glockmail]

And all you need is some good lookng guy to show you what real loving is all about and make you breakfast the next day and you'll forget all about this hetro trip you're on :poke:
But I thought you had to be born gay? :poke:

[Noir]

But I thought you had to be born gay? :poke:


When have you heard me say such? Some are chosen, some chose. :poke:

[glockmail]

When have you heard me say such? Some are chosen, some chose. :poke:
So if they chose to be gay then they shouldn't be given special rights. :poke:

[glockmail]

What sort of special rights? We should all have the same rights, regardless of gender, age, sexual preference ect ect :poke: Should the mentally retarded be allowed to own a gun? Should the blind be allowed to drive? Should queers be allowed to marry? The correct answer to all these questions is no. :poke:

[Noir]

So if they chose to be gay then they shouldn't be given special rights. :poke:

What sort of special rights? We should all have the same rights, regardless of gender, age, sexual preference ect ect :poke:

[glockmail]

What sort of special rights? We should all have the same rights, regardless of gender, age, sexual preference ect ect :poke: See 100.

[Noir]

Should the mentally retarded be allowed to own a gun? Should the blind be allowed to drive? Should queers be allowed to marry? The correct answer to all these questions is no. :poke:


The mentally ill should not own weapons invade they kill or hurt themselves or those around them.
Blind people should not be able to drive as they would kill or hurt those around them
Gay people should not be able to marry....because...er...I dunno...what's your reasoning? :poke:

[bullypulpit]

The mentally ill should not own weapons invade they kill or hurt themselves or those around them.
Blind people should not be able to drive as they would kill or hurt those around them
Gay people should not be able to marry....because...er...I dunno...what's your reasoning? :poke:

There isn't any. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to his own repressed homosexuality.

[crin63]

That's great, Crin. Can you imagine a preacher who using extremely foul language regularly?

I cant believe any man called of God to be a preacher would act like that. Thats what I found so appalling about MFM. But then he was called by people, not by God.

Off topic but I'm kinda excited, I'm spending the afternoon with a guy who grew up a muslim in Mali and was converted to Christ at the age of 22. He has been a Baptist preacher for 16 years now and actually started a Baptist church in Mali. He went to church in London for several years preparing for the ministry. His testimony is incredible and the guy can certainly preach. I'm also hosting a dinner for him and his wife at my house on Thursday. It promises to be a week of tremendous blessings.

[glockmail]

That's great, Crin. Can you imagine a preacher who using extremely foul language regularly?Maineman? :lol:

[glockmail]

The mentally ill should not own weapons invade they kill or hurt themselves or those around them.
Blind people should not be able to drive as they would kill or hurt those around them
Gay people should not be able to marry....because...er...I dunno...what's your reasoning? :poke: Because they are not qualified?

[Noir]

Because they are not qualified?


Are sinners not allowed to marry?

[glockmail]

Are sinners not allowed to marry?Not unless they are a single man and a single woman.

[Noir]

Not unless they are a single man and a single woman.


So a man and a woman can marry no matter their sins. But never two men or two women?

At the end of the day marraige is the joining of two people in the eyes of their God, and their God will judge them for the life that they have lead, who are you to re and deny these people their union with their god?

[glockmail]

So a man and a woman can marry no matter their sins. But never two men or two women?... You have it correct now.

[Noir]

You have it correct now.


Erm, you seem to have forgotten that there was a 2nd part to my last post.

[glockmail]

Erm, you seem to have forgotten that there was a 2nd part to my last post. You should have stopped while you were ahead.

[Noir]

You should have stopped while you were ahead.


So are you going to bother to try to answer it...or not?...I mean you don't have to try and justify what you believe...but...it would help if you did... :poke:

[glockmail]

....

At the end of the day marraige is the joining of two people in the eyes of their God, and their God will judge them for the life that they have lead, who are you to re and deny these people their union with their god?
Unless they are making up a story of some god that I haven't heard about, he won't sanction their union.

[Noir]

Unless they are making up a story of some god that I haven't heard about, he won't sanction their union.


Well if we use the christain God as an example.

Where does it say that murderers can marry into union before God, and a rapist can enter union with God, but, a gay couple can not.

And surly it is for God to judge, not you, or me, or anyone else, so if they get married before their God and their God does not agree with it then they shall burn in he'll and what not, but that is their choice and at the end of the day, their risk.

[glockmail]

Well if we use the christain God as an example.

Where does it say that murderers can marry into union before God, and a rapist can enter union with God, but, a gay couple can not.

And surly it is for God to judge, not you, or me, or anyone else, so if they get married before their God and their God does not agree with it then they shall burn in he'll and what not, but that is their choice and at the end of the day, their risk.


1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Although the Bible doesn't detail each and every one of these sinful acts, it does clearly speak out about many of them. Any deviation from God's original plan for sex between a married man and woman is still a sin in God's eyes. The main reason we call these things perverted is because they are unnatural and scripture clearly tells us those who do such things are committing abominations. Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=246

[Noir]

lulz mate, and from that you see that 2 men or women may not marry.

It also seems that greedy people can't marry, or thieves or male prozzies (but female prozzies are ok) and so forth. You also can't marry if you're a 'sexually immoral' I assume this means oral and anal sex?...so...not many folk can marry stall I guess...

[glockmail]

lulz mate, and from that you see that 2 men or women may not marry.

It also seems that greedy people can't marry, or thieves or male prozzies (but female prozzies are ok) and so forth. You also can't marry if you're a 'sexually immoral' I assume this means oral and anal sex?...so...not many folk can marry stall I guess... Where does it say that greedy people can't marry?

[Kathianne]

What does any of the creepy gay stuff have to do with Lent? If you need help beginning a new thread, just pm any staff.

[glockmail]

What does any of the creepy gay stuff have to do with Lent? If you need help beginning a new thread, just pm any staff. We are having a conversation. Do all conversations have to stay on one subject?

[Noir]

Where does it say that greedy people can't marry?

When I asked why gay folk could not marry with reference to a christain god, you gave that passage from Corinthians, but not only does that passage say God does not like gay people, it also says he doesn't like male prozzies, greedy people, drunks ect

So using the logic that you used, you can not marry if you are a drunk, or gay, or greedy blah blah balh....

@Kath, yeah this thread has taken a few twists and turns in odd directions, I was gonna ask for it to be split earlyer but I didn't wana b causing a fuss.

[Kathianne]

We are having a conversation. Do all conversations have to stay on one subject?

I agree wholeheartedly, just why derail this one?

[glockmail]

I agree wholeheartedly, just why derail this one? Look who's derailing it now. *shrug*

[glockmail]

When I asked why gay folk could not marry with reference to a christain god, you gave that passage from Corinthians, but not only does that passage say God does not like gay people, it also says he doesn't like male prozzies, greedy people, drunks ect

So using the logic that you used, you can not marry if you are a drunk, or gay, or greedy blah blah balh....
.... You ignored the 2nd half of that quote that tied in Leviticus.

[Noir]

but the lavi quote does not say that man should not marry a man, or a woman should not marry a woman, it's just says that gay people are leading sinful lives, but so does everyone who gets married, so I'll ask again, how can you say that sinners can get married, but not if the sin is to do with sexual preference.

Also, my knowledge of the bible is rather not allot, are corinthians and lavi in the NT or OT?

[glockmail]

but the lavi quote does not say that man should not marry a man, or a woman should not marry a woman, it's just says that gay people are leading sinful lives, but so does everyone who gets married, so I'll ask again, how can you say that sinners can get married, but not if the sin is to do with sexual preference.

Also, my knowledge of the bible is rather not allot, are corinthians and lavi in the NT or OT? Leviticus is in the OT and Corinthians NT. Proper interpretation almost always involves tying the two together, as bible.com has done in the quoted passage.

[Noir]

Leviticus is in the OT and Corinthians NT. Proper interpretation almost always involves tying the two together, as bible.com has done in the quoted passage.

Righto, and you ignored the first half of my post.

[actsnoblemartin]

if it makes you feel any better i ignored both parts of your post

:lol:


Righto, and you ignored the first half of my post.

[glockmail]

Righto, and you ignored the first half of my post. I addressed it completely: Proper interpretation almost always involves tying the two together..."

[Noir]

I addressed it completely: Proper interpretation almost always involves tying the two together..."


Your two verses only utline some of the sins man can commit against god, nothing to do with marraige. What I want to know is how you decided which sins allow you to get married and which don't. Surly that should be Gods judgement, not yours.

[glockmail]

Your two verses only utline some of the sins man can commit against god, nothing to do with marraige. What I want to know is how you decided which sins allow you to get married and which don't. Surly that should be Gods judgement, not yours.Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

[DannyR]

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."I don't see that banning gay marriage, as everyone knows once you get married the sex drops off.

In fact, looking at it from that perspective, you've got to be in favor of gay marriage! :laugh2:

[Noir]

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

indeed, so it's made pretty clear that being homosexual is a sin, but it has nothing to do with marraige. The bible says many things are sinful, so why is it that being homosexual is the only sin that stops you from marrying? Why not let them marry and then let god judge rather tHan judge yourself?

[PostmodernProphet]

indeed, so it's made pretty clear that being homosexual is a sin, but it has nothing to do with marraige. The bible says many things are sinful, so why is it that being homosexual is the only sin that stops you from marrying? Why not let them marry and then let god judge rather tHan judge yourself?

can't be a marriage unless you change thousands of years of definition of "marriage"......why should we do that simply because someone wants to do something everyone else rejects?.......they can fuck each other silly if they want to, they can live together, they can do whatever they want so long as they keep it to themselves.....why are they driven to inflict their choices on everyone else by demanding "marriage"?.......

[glockmail]

indeed, so it's made pretty clear that being homosexual is a sin, but it has nothing to do with marraige. The bible says many things are sinful, so why is it that being homosexual is the only sin that stops you from marrying? Why not let them marry and then let god judge rather tHan judge yourself? Wow if you expect God to spell everything out for you so explicitly I suggest that you buy an asbestos coffin now before they are illegal in California.

[Noir]

can't be a marriage unless you change thousands of years of definition of "marriage"......why should we do that simply because someone wants to do something everyone else rejects?.......they can fuck each other silly if they want to, they can live together, they can do whatever they want so long as they keep it to themselves.....why are they driven to inflict their choices on everyone else by demanding "marriage"?.......

They want to mArrry foe the same reason anyone wants to marry, to be joined in union, and how would 2 men or 2 women who were married change your life? What would they be 'inflicting' upon you?

[PostmodernProphet]

What would they be 'inflicting' upon you?

the rubber stamp of societal approval upon their choice.....

[PostmodernProphet]

They want to mArrry foe the same reason anyone wants to marry

no they don't....."marry" is one man and one woman.....they don't want to "marry", they want to change the meaning of "marry" to make it look like their choices are accepted by society.....

[Noir]

the rubber stamp of societal approval upon their choice.....


I still don't see how that makes your life any worse, yet these people are dented the right to marry before their God with legal recognition, that is what folk lie yourself are inflicting on them.

[Noir]

no they don't....."marry" is one man and one woman.....they don't want to "marry", they want to change the meaning of "marry" to make it look like their choices are accepted by society.....


I'm sure that some do it in serch of some sort of acceptance, however, I would never be so vulger as to claim this is why all homosexuals want to marry, you know they have emotions just like you and I, and if they want to show their love for eachother to the world and their god by getting married then that should be their choice.

[The ClayTaurus]

can't be a marriage unless you change thousands of years of definition of "marriage"......"Because that's the way it's always been done" is not a sufficient justification for anything.
why should we do that simply because someone wants to do something everyone else rejects?.......Simply not true. There are plenty of people who have no problem with gays nor gay marriage that are not themselves gay.
they can fuck each other silly if they want to, they can live together, they can do whatever they want so long as they keep it to themselves.....why are they driven to inflict their choices on everyone else by demanding "marriage"?.......explain how two guys marrying inflicts anything on you.

[crin63]

I still don't see how that makes your life any worse, yet these people are dented the right to marry before their God with legal recognition, that is what folk lie yourself are inflicting on them.

Heres a couple ways it affects people if homosexuals are allowed to marry.

Then it has to be taught in schools as an acceptable practice to our children regardless of what we the parents believe.

The titles of mom and dad will have to be removed from school language and replaced with parental unit.

It will become a hate crime to speak against it to your children or publicly for that matter.

It will become socially acceptable and shoved down our childrens throats trying to convert then to pro-homosexual or just tolerant.

[PostmodernProphet]

I still don't see how that makes your life any worse, yet these people are dented the right to marry before their God with legal recognition, that is what folk lie yourself are inflicting on them.

I have inflicted nothing on them......I did not create the definition of marriage....I did not make them gay.....they have the same right to marry that every other man and woman in this country do.....I do not have the right to marry another man, they do not have the right to marry another man.....they want the rest of the world to accept a different definition of marriage because they want to make certain choices......if I choose to marry a tree, should the world change it's definition of marriage?......if I choose to take someone else's property should the world change it's definition of "ownership" (scratch that, it's already been done when we voted for Obama)

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm sure that some do it in serch of some sort of acceptance, however, I would never be so vulger as to claim this is why all homosexuals want to marry, you know they have emotions just like you and I, and if they want to show their love for eachother to the world and their god by getting married then that should be their choice.

ah, so because I am not willing to change the definition of marriage I am vulgar?.....they don't need other's permission to show their love for each other....they only need other's permission to redefine marriage....that is why we have a problem, because they want to do something MORE THAN show their love for each other.....

[PostmodernProphet]

"Because that's the way it's always been done" is not a sufficient justification for anything.

and the fact that a minority of people want to change it isn't sufficient grounds for doing things differently from the way they have always been done.....

[PostmodernProphet]

explain how two guys marrying inflicts anything on you.

you didn't like the answer I gave Noir?.....it isn't going to change....

[The ClayTaurus]

and the fact that a minority of people want to change it isn't sufficient grounds for doing things differently from the way they have always been done.....Absolutely correct, and never a contention of mine. Popular opinion, for what it's worth, is also not the end all be all justification. There are plenty of examples of societal changes that were not widely accepted at their time.

[The ClayTaurus]

you didn't like the answer I gave Noir?.....it isn't going to change....What does it inflict on you? Emotional distress? Physical pain?

Perhaps a better question: What right(s) are you stripped of? How are your rights infringed upon?

[PostmodernProphet]

What does it inflict on you? Emotional distress? Physical pain?

Perhaps a better question: What right(s) are you stripped of? How are your rights infringed upon?

post #44

[DannyR]

no they don't....."marry" is one man and one woman.....they don't want to "marry", they want to change the meaning of "marry" to make it look like their choices are accepted by society.....Thats your definition. Marriage is two individuals joined together to form a family.

Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage.

[DannyR]

Then it has to be taught in schools as an acceptable practice to our children regardless of what we the parents believe.Oh my, horrible. Parents will just do what they did in the desegregation days... ship their kids off to all white, er all STRAIGHT, schools. *lol*


The titles of mom and dad will have to be removed from school language and replaced with parental unit. um, no.


It will become a hate crime to speak against it to your children or publicly for that matter.Really? Its not a hate crime to speak against blacks today. Same applies.


It will become socially acceptable and shoved down our childrens throats trying to convert then to pro-homosexual or just tolerant.Ah, but do they swallow?

[PostmodernProphet]

Thats your definition. Marriage is two individuals joined together to form a family.

Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage.


funny, I thought it had been around a lot longer than I have.....so you figure it's only recently that marriage was limited to a man and a woman?.......

[manu1959]

So if they chose to be gay then they shouldn't be given special rights. :poke:

you choose to be an ass and you have special rights.......

[hjmick]

Thats your definition. Marriage is two individuals joined together to form a family.

Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage.

Wrong on both counts. The word "marriage" dates back to the 14th century and has, until very recently, always been defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Your claim that "Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage" is absolutely laughable.

[PostmodernProphet]

Really? Its not a hate crime to speak against blacks today. Same applies.


why does the same apply.....do you figure that blacks choose to engage in "blackness activity"?.....and then seek to have society redefine it's institutions to make "blackness activity" acceptable?......hint: the reason that sounds stupid is that there is no parallel....

[DannyR]

funny, I thought it had been around a lot longer than I have.....so you figure it's only recently that marriage was limited to a man and a woman?.......Gay marriage has been around a lot longer than you have as well. And yes, its only recently that arguing about it being ONLY between a man and a woman has become an issue, because its only recently that gays have had enough rights to try and get married in western culture.

It was legal during the Roman empire. The Greeks didn't have much of a stigma about two men being together either.


do you figure that blacks choose to engage in "blackness activity"?.....and then seek to have society redefine it's institutions to make "blackness activity" acceptable?I recall quite a number of people slamming Rev. Wright for pro-black language, and his church as an "African" church. Chosing to do black only activities does get one mocked. It isn't, however, a hate crime.

[PostmodernProphet]

Gay marriage has been around a lot longer than you have as well. And yes, its only recently that arguing about it being ONLY between a man and a woman has become an issue, because its only recently that gays have had enough rights to try and get married in western culture.

It was legal during the Roman empire. The Greeks didn't have much of a stigma about two men being together either.

ah, so just the last 2000 years or so.......


I recall quite a number of people slamming Rev. Wright for pro-black language, and his church as an "African" church. Chosing to do black only activities does get one mocked. It isn't, however, a hate crime.

your parallel challenged, aren't you.....so you're going to parallel "God Damn America" and gay marriage?.....well, maybe......

[DannyR]

ah, so just the last 2000 years or soRome outlawed it in 342, and its generally been the tradition since then. But given that gays have lived together and called themselves married since then, I'd say it never had the definition you want it to have. Its only recently as a critical threshold of gay awareness has been reached that conservatives have suddenly reacted and tried to impose a strict gender based definition of marriage in the legal code, where before it was neutral.


so you're going to parallel "God Damn America" and gay marriage?.....well, maybe......no. Wright had lots of crazy attached to him. Before the GDA statement, he was attacked for his church being a "pro-african" church.

[PostmodernProphet]

Rome outlawed it in 342, and its generally been the tradition since then. But given that gays have lived together and called themselves married since then, I'd say it never had the definition you want it to have. Its only recently as a critical threshold of gay awareness has been reached that conservatives have suddenly reacted and tried to impose a strict gender based definition of marriage in the legal code, where before it was neutral.

what gays called themselves has never bothered anyone....it's only when they decided to change the laws to force everyone else to call them married that it became an issue....



no. Wright had lots of crazy attached to him. Before the GDA statement, he was attacked for his church being a "pro-african" church.

none of which has anything to do with changing a 1658 year old tradition called marriage to include an abnormal lifestyle choice as legal......

[Lizabeth]

what gays called themselves has never bothered anyone....it's only when they decided to change the laws to force everyone else to call them married that it became an issue....



none of which has anything to do with changing a 1658 year old tradition called marriage to include an abnormal lifestyle choice as legal......

Several years ago when Howard Stern was on regular FM in NY...he did an on air interview with the self titled head of the Man Boy Love Association. I recall very distinctly his argument that pedophilia would soon become accepted and noted the ever increasing reform movement in Gay Rights. He said that in the early part of the 20th century gays remained hidden and could not freely express their love without severe repercussions and even imprisonment in some states. As the years rolled on through the late 60's to then the 90's homosexuals were able to have parades to openly express their love, had laws enacted to prevent discrimination in the workplace, and were able to adopt children. Eventually, he said the same development of acceptance would occur for those who have a "special" love for children.

Strange but I see his pattern. And before anyone accuses me of insinuating that homosexuals are pedophiles....I am not. What I am saying is that I feel it is most certainly a mistake to allow gay individuals to marry the same as a heterosexual couple. I am not a religious person but I do feel it is morally wrong to give it equal value.

[PostmodernProphet]

it has happened before in society....before 1972 one of the most heinous things a person could do was abort a pregnancy.......now we have an entire generation that has grown up believing it is not only acceptable, but a good thing to do......

[Lizabeth]

it has happened before in society....before 1972 one of the most heinous things a person could do was abort a pregnancy.......now we have an entire generation that has grown up believing it is not only acceptable, but a good thing to do......

how do you feel about the morning after pill? or contraception in general?

[DannyR]

What I am saying is that I feel it is most certainly a mistake to allow gay individuals to marry the same as a heterosexual couple. I am not a religious person but I do feel it is morally wrong to give it equal value.You can feel its morally wrong all you want. They aren't asking for your approval, they are just asking for their equal rights.

I don't approve of non-married people having sex, but its not against the law. I don't approve of smoking, but nobody is stopping you from doing so in your own home. I don't approve of Brittany Spears going to Vegas and getting a marriage license, but she's still able to do so and gays aren't.

The gay "married" (and both they and I call them such, if the law doesn't) couples I know are a better example of what marriage should be than most of the celebrity couples out there parading in front of the world.

[PostmodernProphet]

how do you feel about the morning after pill? or contraception in general?

any method of contraception that destroys a life that has already begun is wrong......however there are many methods which simply prevent a life from beginning....I have no problem with that.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Y I don't approve of smoking, but nobody is stopping you from doing so in your own home.

well I intend to ask society to redefine "my own home" to include your kitchen.....

[The ClayTaurus]

post #44I've read post 44 3 times now, searching for words that maybe were hidden. There are none that I can see. Just the rubber stamp statement. Now that you realize I read your post, do you care to address mine?

[The ClayTaurus]

Several years ago when Howard Stern was on regular FM in NY...he did an on air interview with the self titled head of the Man Boy Love Association. I recall very distinctly his argument that pedophilia would soon become accepted and noted the ever increasing reform movement in Gay Rights. He said that in the early part of the 20th century gays remained hidden and could not freely express their love without severe repercussions and even imprisonment in some states. As the years rolled on through the late 60's to then the 90's homosexuals were able to have parades to openly express their love, had laws enacted to prevent discrimination in the workplace, and were able to adopt children. Eventually, he said the same development of acceptance would occur for those who have a "special" love for children.

Strange but I see his pattern. And before anyone accuses me of insinuating that homosexuals are pedophiles....I am not. What I am saying is that I feel it is most certainly a mistake to allow gay individuals to marry the same as a heterosexual couple. I am not a religious person but I do feel it is morally wrong to give it equal value.There is a big, giant wall on the slippery slope of legalizing gay marriage leading to legalizaing pedophilia - the wall of knowing consent from both parties. Marriage, no matter the parties, requires consent from both. That is the fundamental difference from pedophilia, which does not.

[DannyR]

well I intend to ask society to redefine "my own home" to include your kitchen.....Ah, so gays are having sex in your kitchen are they? Glad to know you nailed that analogy.

[PostmodernProphet]

I've read post 44 3 times now, searching for words that maybe were hidden. There are none that I can see. Just the rubber stamp statement. Now that you realize I read your post, do you care to address mine?

if you fail to see how I addressed it before, you will fail to see it if I address it again....

[PostmodernProphet]

Ah, so gays are having sex in your kitchen are they? Glad to know you nailed that analogy.

??....would you pass me that butter dish?....I need someplace to flick my ashes....

[crin63]

[QUOTE]Oh my, horrible. Parents will just do what they did in the desegregation days... ship their kids off to all white, er all STRAIGHT, schools. *lol*

Nice attempt at painting it as equal to racism. These perverts have decided to change their natural use into something abominable and you want to compare it to black folk.


um, no.

UM YES! They are already doing that in California.


Really? Its not a hate crime to speak against blacks today. Same applies.

Why do you insist on painting black folk with the same brush as perverts. Skin color is not a choice.


Ah, but do they swallow?

When they are ridiculed by their teachers for what their parents are trying to teach them and the ensuing peer pressure that will follow from the teachers ridicule, yes they will.

[Lizabeth]

You can feel its morally wrong all you want. They aren't asking for your approval, they are just asking for their equal rights.

I don't approve of non-married people having sex, but its not against the law. I don't approve of smoking, but nobody is stopping you from doing so in your own home. I don't approve of Brittany Spears going to Vegas and getting a marriage license, but she's still able to do so and gays aren't.

The gay "married" (and both they and I call them such, if the law doesn't) couples I know are a better example of what marriage should be than most of the celebrity couples out there parading in front of the world.

What they do not have is a "right" to get married. None of us do. There is no inalienable right to get married. Where have you ever heard say a Christian Couple Sues and wins the right to get married say in a Muslin Church in a Christian ceremony?

We had a similar case here in NJ. A lesbian couple wanted to get married on a church owned deck attached to a NJ boardwalk. The church rents the space for events. They refused to allow a lesbian marriage ceremony because it violated the church's core beliefs. The NJ State Supreme Court ruled against the Church. This is wrong!

I'm Christian my Fiancee is Jewish can we sue for the "right" to get married in a Mosk? For petes' sake I would even be denied a ceremony in a Catholic Chruch!

Hetrosexual couples have been denied a license to get married. So no, Marriage is not an Equal Rights Issue.

[DannyR]

Nice attempt at painting it as equal to racism.

Not an attempt. Its exactly the same. Not as many gays as blacks to stand up for their rights, but its just as much about oppression of a minority by an unsympathetic majority.



What they do not have is a "right" to get married. None of us do. There is no inalienable right to get married.Supreme court has said otherwise:


Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival

-Loving v VirginiaThe case notes that for a marriage to be banned, there must be a "legitimate overriding purpose" in doing so. So what's the reason to ban gay marriage other than a general dislike of gays and that they make you uncomfortable?



Where have you ever heard say a Christian Couple Sues and wins the right to get married say in a Muslin Church in a Christian ceremony? Strawman argument. Nobody is forcing any church to marry anybody they don't want to. Where your NJ church erred was in opening up their property as a business. As such, they have to abide by NJ business laws, which prohibit sexual discrimination. Its the contract they agreed to when they decided to make a buck selling their property to others, and they can win back their right to deny whoever they want by stopping the selling of their property and not acting like a business.

[Lizabeth]

The Church in NJ just like any hall, has the right as a business to limit and restrict who uses it's facilities. In the case of a Church, to get married at a church owned property you don't rent it, a charitable donation is made because they are non-profit.

Yes, it is the same thing. I would have no specific right to insist or demand that an organization permit the use of their facility for a ceremony that contradicts their beliefs. Plus why would I want to have it there anyway? These two were not wanted at the site. Why would you want to celebrate your life together with a group that is forced to allow you to use it. Bad karma all around.

Majority is supposed to rule and I believe the individual states are weighing in a resounding No to gay marriage.

[DannyR]

The Church in NJ just like any hall, has the right as a business to limit and restrict who uses it's facilities. In the case of a Church, to get married at a church owned property you don't rent it, a charitable donation is made because they are non-profit.*shrug* sounds like the NJ court blew it then. Have to read the verdict though. Depends on how the church handled it. Again, business don't have the right to restrict every person. If a black man is denied service at a bar and posts "whites only!", the bar will lose its license to operate. Same holds for gays in states where that is listed as a discriminatory factor.


Plus why would I want to have it there anyway? These two were not wanted at the site. Why would you want to celebrate your life together with a group that is forced to allow you to use it. Bad karma all around.I'd tend to agree. I certainly wouldn't want my wedding held under such circumstances, but perhaps its the only venue available?


Majority is supposed to ruleNot when it comes to civil rights.

[glockmail]

you choose to be an ass and you have special rights....... Which rights would those be? I missed the memo for us assholes. :poke:

[The ClayTaurus]

if you fail to see how I addressed it before, you will fail to see it if I address it again....You DIDN'T address it, and I get the feeling now you're doing all you can to actually avoid the discussion altogether.

Your post said that allowing gay marriage inflicted a rubber stamp of societal approval on your life. What are the results of this infliction on you, personally?

As for questions you haven't addressed in this thread:
What (if any) rights of yours are infringed upon by gay marriage?
What (if any) rights of yours are stripped by gay marriage?

[Yurt]

Wrong on both counts. The word "marriage" dates back to the 14th century and has, until very recently, always been defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Your claim that "Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage" is absolutely laughable.

true. but to people like danny, who are allegedly independent thinkers, conservatives are the boogeyman...

[DannyR]

Wrong on both counts. The word "marriage" dates back to the 14th century and has, until very recently, always been defined as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.":lol: Seriously? What a way to look at the argument. Sure, I guess what the Romans and Greeks had weren't "marriages" because they didn't speak ENGLISH?!? :laugh2: I guess if you go to another country and get married, you aren't really married because the word isn't "Marriage" in that language. Or are you really trying to tell us that the concept of two people getting married only originated in the 14th century? :poke:

Other cultures have words meaning two people joined together in a relationship as well. Oh oh my, what are those relationships called? Marriages. (or matrimonium, or whatever!) And they were not always exclusively man/woman.


Your claim that "Adding gender to the definition is something conservatives are doing only lately to fight gay marriage" is absolutely laughable.so is your focusing only on one language's use of the concept.



true. but to people like danny, who are allegedly independent thinkers, conservatives are the boogeyman.Its usually the religious fundamentalist subtype that are the real boogymen. Get rid of that type, and I'm generally fine with them.

[PostmodernProphet]

Y
Your post said that allowing gay marriage inflicted a rubber stamp of societal approval on your life.

no I didn't....I said that allowing gay marriage inflicted a rubber stamp of societal approval on their choices....against my will I am told that I must not just tolerate their choices, I must treat them as normal.....

[PostmodernProphet]

:lol: Seriously? What a way to look at the argument. Sure, I guess what the Romans and Greeks had weren't "marriages" because they didn't speak ENGLISH?!? :laugh2: I guess if you go to another country and get married, you aren't really married because the word isn't "Marriage" in that language. Or are you really trying to tell us that the concept of two people getting married only originated in the 14th century? :poke:

Other cultures have words meaning two people joined together in a relationship as well. Oh oh my, what are those relationships called? Marriages. (or matrimonium, or whatever!) And they were not always exclusively man/woman.

so is your focusing only on one language's use of the concept.


Its usually the religious fundamentalist subtype that are the real boogymen. Get rid of that type, and I'm generally fine with them.'

your attempt to claim that gay marriages have always been considered "normal" is absurd.....if that were true it wouldn't be necessary to go through the courts to permit them......

[hjmick]

You see, Danny, you claimed that it is conservatives who have added gender to the definition of marriage, not me. All I did was show you that you were wrong. I'm sorry if that bothers you. Whether or not ancient Romans or ancient Greeks entered into same sex relationships isn't really the issue, though if you want to make it part of the discussion, that's fine. I believe it has been stated that practice was ended in the Roman empire around 342 AD, correct? They probably ended it in Greece about the same time, but I don't know. So you want to apply practices that were outlawed over 1600 years ago to the issue today? How is it relevant? It seems to me that you would be better off not pointing out what ancient civilizations did, especially when the practice was eventually outlawed as it was in Rome.

As for one language, hardly. Though I do not have dictionaries in multiple languages, my guess is that the word "marriage," in whatever language, has been defined the same way for centuries.

Quite frankly, I don't give two flying rhinoceros farts about same sex marriage one way or the other. I truly couldn't possibly care less. But for crying out loud, don't try to pretend that it is conservatives who have defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, it's been defined that way for over 600 years. And let's not pretend that it is conservatives alone who are against gay marriage. Especially when the leader of your party, Barack Obama himself, is on the record as being against gay marriage.

[DannyR]

your attempt to claim that gay marriages have always been considered "normal" is absurd.....if that were true it wouldn't be necessary to go through the courts to permit them......Putting words in my mouth. I never ever said gay marriage was ever considered "normal".

What I did say is that the word marriage doesn't ALWAYS mean just a man and a woman as you imply, and historically its not been the case.


All I did was show you that you were wrong. Nope, all you did was point out that the english definition of a word dated back to the 14th century, totally irrelevant to the conversation.


So you want to apply practices that were outlawed over 1600 years ago to the issue today? How is it relevant? It seems to me that you would be better off not pointing out what ancient civilizations did, especially when the practice was eventually outlawed as it was in Rome.Its perfectly relevant, when I'm replying to someone who says marriage is only one thing, ignoring all previous precedents. It means the word is not a static thing, locked to just one definition.


Especially when the leader of your party, Barack Obama himself, is on the record as being against gay marriage.*lol* Since when is Barack Obama the leader of MY party?! Do you even know what party I belong to?

[Yurt]

Putting words in my mouth. I never ever said gay marriage was ever considered "normal".

What I did say is that the word marriage doesn't ALWAYS mean just a man and a woman as you imply, and historically its not been the case.

Nope, all you did was point out that the english definition of a word dated back to the 14th century, totally irrelevant to the conversation.

Its perfectly relevant, when I'm replying to someone who says marriage is only one thing, ignoring all previous precedents.

*lol* Since when is Barack Obama the leader of MY party?! Do you even know what party I belong to?

when our court system refers to "historically" it refers to our historical legal system, that as hjmick points out, goes back to the middle ages. we don't cite cave men law, nor do we cite back to the greek or roman empires. you need to understand that historically speaking marriage has in fact been between a man and a woman.

you want to argue cave man law, go for it. but you are wrong about our legal system. further, why don't you discuss judaism laws...between a man a woman, you bet and that precedes greek and roman. and still doubt that in roman law or greek law "historically" had same sex marriages. i posted on this a while back and i believe you are wrong.

[hjmick]

Its perfectly relevant, when I'm replying to someone who says marriage is only one thing, ignoring all previous precedents. It means the word is not a static thing, locked to just one definition.

The Greek king Theseus, in 900BC, had two men sit in chairs and beat each other to death for entertainment. That is a precedent. Perhaps we should bring back this form of entertainment? ;)

The ancient Romans fed Christians to the lions, perhaps we should bring... Never mind. I can't help but think there would be little objection by some to this idea. LOL


*lol* Since when is Barack Obama the leader of MY party?! Do you even know what party I belong to?

You're right, that was an assumption on my part. My apologies if you were offended because I thought you were a Democrat. I completely understand.

Anyway, as I said before, I really don't care one way or the other about same sex marriage. There are bigger things to worry about. Besides, everyone is treated the same with regard to marriage under federal law. None of us can marry someone of the same sex.

Thanks for the discussion, Danny, it's been fun.

[DannyR]

when our court system refers to "historically" it refers to our historical legal systemEh? Not saying anything differently. I agree with that.


further, why don't you discuss judaism laws...between a man a woman, you bet and that precedes greek and roman.True enough as well, and we already discussed Judaism laws and the reasons for their prohibitions. Minority group wants babies, and lots of them. Greeks and Romans were the powers of their day, and while they were gay marriage was allowed. Roman law was changed when Rome started to decline and true Romans were again a minority power, not to mention the sudden influence of a homophobic religion intruding in the Empire. ;-)


and still doubt that in roman law or greek law "historically" had same sex marriages.Doubt all you want, its a historical fact, documented by Martial and the cancellation of which is documented in the Theodosian Code.

[Yurt]

Eh? Not saying anything differently. I agree with that.

True enough as well, and we already discussed Judaism laws and the reasons for their prohibitions. Minority group wants babies, and lots of them. Greeks and Romans were the powers of their day, and while they were gay marriage was allowed. Roman law was changed when Rome started to decline and true Romans were again a minority power, not to mention the sudden influence of a homophobic religion intruding in the Empire. ;-)

Doubt all you want, its a historical fact, documented by Martial and the cancellation of which is documented in the Theodosian Code.

it was not gay marriage. you saying so is wrong. in fact, the romans looked down upon the greek homosexuals (males), though they put up with it, they thought it a sign of weakness. and if you really want to use the romans as your "historical" reference, they did outlaw homosexual "unions" or acts in the 4th century....almost 2000 years of historical tradition that outlaws any homosexual legal union. and you have the temerity to say there is no historical tradition of outlawing gay marriages? strange indeed.

[DannyR]

it was not gay marriage. you saying so is wrong.Um, sorry. Code specifically mentions gay marriage when they banned it. So yes, in fact it existed and until the 300's was legal.


in fact, the romans looked down upon the greek homosexuals (males), though they put up with it, they thought it a sign of weaknessAs you said, they put up with it. I never argued it was the majority type of marriage. Gays have always been a minority and looked down upon by others. Tolerated at BEST.


and you have the temerity to say there is no historical tradition of outlawing gay marriages?Eh? I agreed with you that Western court systems don't recognize Roman precedent. Thats not the same as saying there is no historical tradition of outlawing it ever. Bible pretty much proves that. Don't mix and match topics here.

As for the CURRENT impetus, most people didn't give it a thought of what it meant until 1993! The Hawaii case suddenly brought the issue to light, and suddently conservatives rallied round ot specifically add male/female to the definition because it was NOT specifically stated everywhere.

[Yurt]

do you have a link to the code?

[PostmodernProphet]

looked up the Code, which dates from the mid 400s by the way and found very little translated into English on the net.....did find this though....


On Dec 16 342 Constantius and Constans passed a law (actually issued a a legal decision) which was included in the later Theodosian Code:

Cod.Theod. IX. Viii. 3: (=Cod. Justin IX.ix.31): When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. [Bailey 70]

The meaning of this law has been hotly debated. Some have argued it indicates a previous legal status of same-sex marriage [John Boswell], others that "marries" simply means "give himself sexually"; and others that it relates to a a particular legal case.

The Law of 390

A clearer law was issued by Valentinian II, Theodoisus and Arcadius on Aug 6, 390. It also survives in the Theodosian Code:

Cod.Theod. IX. Vii. 6: All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man's body, acting the part of a woman's to the sufferance of alien sex (for they appear not to be different from women), shall expiate a crime of this kind in avenging flames in the sight of the people.

The wording is obscure - is it directed at passive partners or "sodomists" for instance? - but the attitude is clear. Again, it is less clear that this was ever applied, and, as noted, the tax on boy prostitutes continued to be collected. Still, this is beginning of the penalty or burning which was supposed to have been applied in areas in which Roman law ran. .
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/just-novels.html

I also found this...


Lex Scantinia (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Lex Scantia) was an ancient Roman law
Roman law

Roman law is the law system of ancient Rome. The development of Roman law covers more than one thousand years from the law of the twelve tables to the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian I ....
(named after aedile Scantinius Capitolinus who had lived around 225 BCE) and introduced in 149 BCE during the Roman Republic
Roman Republic

The Roman Republic was a phase of the Ancient Rome characterized by a republican form of government....
that regulated sexual behavior, including pederasty, adultery and passivity, potentially legislating the death penalty for same-sex behavior among free-born men. Allegations exist that even before Lex Scantinia such laws existed in Rome, but direct evidence of these laws has been lost.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Lex_Scantinia

[bullypulpit]

I have never really understood anyone's opposition to letting same-gender couples enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that their straight, married counterparts do. From a practical standpoint, there is no difference from proposed civil unions and marriage except for some silly claim of the "sanctity" of marriage.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have never really understood anyone's opposition to letting same-gender couples enjoy the same rights, responsibilities and privileges that their straight, married counterparts do. From a practical standpoint, there is no difference from proposed civil unions and marriage except for some silly claim of the "sanctity" of marriage.

if there is no difference, why did the gays in Massachusetts go to the state supreme court to overthrow it's civil union law and demand "marriage".....the difference is that they aren't demanding equal rights, they are demanding the legal status of "normal".....that is why we oppose it....it is the law dictating to the majority that which they must consider "normal".......

[The ClayTaurus]

no I didn't....I said that allowing gay marriage inflicted a rubber stamp of societal approval on their choices....against my will I am told that I must not just tolerate their choices, I must treat them as normal.....You would need to tolerate them; you wouldn't need to treat them as normal. They aren't normal, by the very definition of the word.

All of this causes you what, exactly... emotional distress? Physical pain? It strips you of what rights? Infringes on what rights? This makes 4 times asked and 4 times unanswered.

[PostmodernProphet]

You would need to tolerate them; you wouldn't need to treat them as normal.

marriage between a man and a woman is normal....creating a law that says a union between two men equals marriage cloaks that relationship with normality.....just like the last thirty years has cloaked the killing of unborn children with normality.....

[PostmodernProphet]

This makes 4 times asked and 4 times unanswered.

face it....I have answered your question every time....you just don't like the answer.....do you feel I only have the right to object to something if it affects me personally?....I have no right to speak out if all it damages is the society that I am a part of?.....get real.....

[The ClayTaurus]

face it....I have answered your question every time....you just don't like the answer.....do you feel I only have the right to object to something if it affects me personally?....I have no right to speak out if all it damages is the society that I am a part of?.....get real.....You answered what you don't like about it. I have no problem with that answer. It's your opinion, and an opinion can't be wrong. I asked additional questions that you keep claiming you've answered, and you haven't. I want to know HOW gay marriage affects you personally, in what ways it changes your life. You have provided ZERO such examples. All you have provided is that:
a) you just don't like it
b) allowing gay marriage inflicts a rubber stamp of societal approval on their choices

Neither of these infringe on your rights. Neither of these strip you of any rights. As for just not liking it, I'm sure that CAN affect you personally, but you have provided zero evidence of how it does.

As for your rights, I have not once told you you have no right to object to something, or that your right to object to something is conditional. That is absurd. Please stop labeling my questions to you as attempts to quash your rights.

[The ClayTaurus]

marriage between a man and a woman is normal....creating a law that says a union between two men equals marriage cloaks that relationship with normality.....just like the last thirty years has cloaked the killing of unborn children with normality.....An abortion is not normal. So long as man-wife marriage constitutes the vast majority of marriages, gay marriage would never be normal. Perhaps you mean "legal"?

Something being "normal" is not a basis for it's legality. Do you disagree?

[PostmodernProphet]

Something being "normal" is not a basis for it's legality. Do you disagree?

completely irrelevant to the issue.....we have an entire generation that has grown up thinking there is nothing abnormal about abortion BECAUSE it's legal.....that is the impact upon society......the same would be true about gay marriage.....

[PostmodernProphet]

As for your rights, I have not once told you you have no right to object to something, or that your right to object to something is conditional. That is absurd. Please stop labeling my questions to you as attempts to quash your rights.

apparently you are unable to see that forcing me to treat something as normal DOES strip me of my rights to object to something......

[The ClayTaurus]

completely irrelevant to the issue.....we have an entire generation that has grown up thinking there is nothing abnormal about abortion BECAUSE it's legal.....that is the impact upon society......the same would be true about gay marriage.....It IS relevant because of the standards for whether something should be LEGAL or not. You can not outlaw something because it's not normal, or because everyone has been lead to believe it IS normal. Normality is irrelevant to legality.

[The ClayTaurus]

apparently you are unable to see that forcing me to treat something as normal DOES strip me of my rights to object to something......You are not forced to treat it as normal. No one will lock you up for speaking out against homosexual marriage or homosexual activity in general. No one will lock you up for recoiling in pure horror at the site of a gay couple. You can object to gay marriage all you want, even if it's deemed legal. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise, aside from saying the equivalent of "that's not true!" or "yes it will!"

Let me know if you want to have a debate with purely unsubstantiated statements; it will certainly makes things easier for me.

[PostmodernProphet]

It IS relevant because of the standards for whether something should be LEGAL or not. You can not outlaw something because it's not normal, or because everyone has been lead to believe it IS normal. Normality is irrelevant to legality.

abortion was outlawed because it was the killing of an unborn human.....Roe changed that and made it legal......it had nothing at all to do with "normal".....but making it legal means that those that are born after grow up thinking it's normal.....

[The ClayTaurus]

abortion was outlawed because it was the killing of an unborn human.....Roe changed that and made it legal......it had nothing at all to do with "normal".....but making it legal means that those that are born after grow up thinking it's normal.....It's legal for you to wear a Dr. Seuss hat and a pink spandex jump suit to the supermarket. No one thinks that's normal.

[PostmodernProphet]

You are not forced to treat it as normal. No one will lock you up for speaking out against homosexual marriage or homosexual activity in general. No one will lock you up for recoiling in pure horror at the site of a gay couple. You can object to gay marriage all you want, even if it's deemed legal. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise, aside from saying the equivalent of "that's not true!" or "yes it will!"



you're putting the cart before the horse, or the ass before the penis, so to speak.....it isn't that I am trying to make gay marriage illegal.....gay marriage has always BEEN illegal.....gays want to make it legal because THEN people will start treating it as normal....I shouldn't have to demonstrate to keep the law from making the abnormal normal.....why should the law change such that I would HAVE TO protest the making of the abnormal normal....why not just keep it abnormal?......

[Abbey Marie]

You are not forced to treat it as normal. No one will lock you up for speaking out against homosexual marriage or homosexual activity in general. No one will lock you up for recoiling in pure horror at the site of a gay couple. You can object to gay marriage all you want, even if it's deemed legal. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise, aside from saying the equivalent of "that's not true!" or "yes it will!"
...


Maybe not at first...

[Yurt]

looked up the Code, which dates from the mid 400s by the way and found very little translated into English on the net.....did find this though....


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/just-novels.html

I also found this...



http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Lex_Scantinia

that indicates the opposite of what danny is telling us. thats why i am curious as to where he saw this code...i have not been able to find it, seems what you found does not address homosexual marriage. however, since he seems to sure that this code exists, i'm curious where he saw this code, maybe he is an immortal....

[DannyR]

that indicates the opposite of what danny is telling usHow so? As the article itself says:
The meaning of this law has been hotly debated. Some have argued it indicates a previous legal status of same-sex marriage [John Boswell], others that "marries" simply means "give himself sexually"; and others that it relates to a a particular legal case.Its extremely rare for laws to be passed without some need prompting them. For this law to have made it into the code implies that there were gay marriages people objected to in the first place.

If you take the second argument, that "marries" means something else, then that supports my argument as well that "marriage" isn't a word with just the one meaning as has been argued by you.


since he seems to sure that this code existsUm, he posted the code in question right before you and you commented on it!

[Yurt]

"some have argued" is your proof that rome had gay marriage :laugh2:

i told you there was no code that allowed gay marriage

[DannyR]

i told you there was no code that allowed gay marriageIrrelevant. laws aren't passed "allowing" something. They are almost always passed to ban it after the fact. I told you gay marriage was legal until the law BANNING it was passed, and the code proving that has been shown, ergo it proves it existed.

But if you demand more proof, there are the following examples:

One proof is that Nero married a castrated man.

Another: In his Epigrams, Martial describes the following:
You see yonder individual, Decianus, with locks uncombed, whose grave brow even you fear; who talks incessantly of the Curii and Camilli, defenders of their country's liberties: do not trust his looks; he was taken to wife but yesterday.

The bearded Callistratus has been taken in marriage by the lusty Afer, in the same way as a virgin is usually taken in marriage by her husband. The torches shone forth, the flame-coloured veil concealed the bride's countenance, and the language heard at bridals was not wanting. Even the dowry was settled. Does not this seem yet enough to you, Rome? Do you expect that the bride should present the spouse with pledges of affection?

[Yurt]

Irrelevant. laws aren't passed "allowing" something. They are almost always passed to ban it after the fact. I told you gay marriage was legal until the law BANNING it was passed, and the code proving that has been shown, ergo it proves it existed.

But if you demand more proof, there are the following examples:

One proof is that Nero married a castrated man.

Another: In his Epigrams, Martial describes the following:

laws are passed allowing something...all the time...further, you very next sentence contradicts your first as you then say "almost always"...well if not always, then...

and you said:


Um, sorry. Code specifically mentions gay marriage when they banned it. So yes, in fact it existed and until the 300's was legal.

i asked where this specific code is. you have not provided it. you have provided maybes and possibilities, but you said the code "specifically" mentions "gay marriage."

[DannyR]

i asked where this specific code is. you have not provided it. Prophet posted it. See above. And I provided other historical evidence of marriages during Roman times. You ignored those, because they are irrefutable.


you said the code "specifically" mentions "gay marriage."Law addresses the marriage of two men. Unless you are now going to start arguing yourself that the word marriage meant something else then. Please do so, as that has been my point all along.

[Yurt]

Prophet posted it. See above. And I provided other historical evidence of marriages during Roman times. You ignored those, because they are irrefutable.

Law addresses the marriage of two men. Unless you are now going to start arguing yourself that the word marriage meant something else then. Please do so, as that has been my point all along.

no, pmp posted what some "argue" is the code and what it meant. you specifically said the code mentioned "gay marriage." you have failed to provide that code that in your words specifically say gay marriage. simple as that.

i said no such code existed that specifically allowed gay marriage. it appears that since you can't provide this code that you said explicitely exists, i am right.

[DannyR]

no, pmp posted what some "argue" is the code and what it meant.Wrong. Nobody is arguing that the code he posted is in fact the Cod.Theod. IX. Viii. 3 except you.

And it specifically mentions marriage and men, using both those words. QUITE EXPLICIT!

Sorry it doesn't use the word "gay"

Yet another post you start losing and resort to playing word games.

And you still ignore the other proof I posted of other gay marriages. I'd really like to see you argue how Nero's actions weren't legal. *lol*

[Yurt]

Wrong. Nobody is arguing that the code he posted is in fact the Cod.Theod. IX. Viii. 3 except you.

And it specifically mentions marriage and men, using both those words. QUITE EXPLICIT!

Sorry it doesn't use the word "gay"

Yet another post you start losing and resort to playing word games.

And you still ignore the other proof I posted of other gay marriages. I'd really like to see you argue how Nero's actions weren't legal. *lol*

dude..give me a break...you posted pmp's post about some argue in direct response to my request for the code

you made the words, i merely am holding you to your words. if you find that a game, perhaps you should not speak on the subject matter as it is clear you cannot back up your precise words. i'll remember next time to ignore your words, fair enough...

[DannyR]

you made the words, i merely am holding you to your words.Yup, and what were my words: "Doubt all you want, its a historical fact, documented by Martial and the cancellation of which is documented in the Theodosian Code."

Hmmm, documented by Martial. I posted two such quotes from him of gay marriages he knew about.

The cancellation of gay marriage from the Theodosian Code; also since posted. Or are you saying the Theodosian code doesn't ban gay marriage?

And I threw in a Nero marriage to boot.

I've more than satisfied my promises. You're playing word games now and demanding something I never promised. Its typical behavior on your part from what I've seen. You lose the argument, and start playing word games trying to salvage your pride. Man up and admit you were wrong.

[PostmodernProphet]

Prophet posted it.

and I have yet to see your thank you for doing your work.....be that as it may, what I have quoted does not support your claim....it merely shows that a person has argued that it supports that conclusion....and even if that were true, it is clear that the law since the 300s is exactly contrary to what you claim has been the existing "norm"......I would say something which is NOT for 1700 years is not something which IS......simple enough?

[PostmodernProphet]

It's legal for you to wear a Dr. Seuss hat and a pink spandex jump suit to the supermarket. No one thinks that's normal.

have you seen me petitioning the courts for an order stating that pink spandex should be deemed the appropriate attire for grocery shopping?......

[Yurt]

Um, sorry. Code specifically mentions gay marriage when they banned it. So yes, in fact it existed and until the 300's was legal.

As you said, they put up with it. I never argued it was the majority type of marriage. Gays have always been a minority and looked down upon by others. Tolerated at BEST.

Eh? I agreed with you that Western court systems don't recognize Roman precedent. Thats not the same as saying there is no historical tradition of outlawing it ever. Bible pretty much proves that. Don't mix and match topics here.

As for the CURRENT impetus, most people didn't give it a thought of what it meant until 1993! The Hawaii case suddenly brought the issue to light, and suddently conservatives rallied round ot specifically add male/female to the definition because it was NOT specifically stated everywhere.


Yup, and what were my words: "Doubt all you want, its a historical fact, documented by Martial and the cancellation of which is documented in the Theodosian Code."

Hmmm, documented by Martial. I posted two such quotes from him of gay marriages he knew about.

The cancellation of gay marriage from the Theodosian Code; also since posted. Or are you saying the Theodosian code doesn't ban gay marriage?

And I threw in a Nero marriage to boot.

I've more than satisfied my promises. You're playing word games now and demanding something I never promised. Its typical behavior on your part from what I've seen. You lose the argument, and start playing word games trying to salvage your pride. Man up and admit you were wrong.

nice try, the above in red are your exact words

[PostmodernProphet]

One proof is that Nero married a castrated man.



you know Danny...you've been pretty loose with the "proofs" so far, but let's get something clear.....if you aren't going to provide links to back up your arguments, don't post them.......

[DannyR]

to what you claim has been the existing "norm"Um, wrong. I never claimed gay marriage was ever a norm. I only stated that its existed in the past, and thus the word marriage has not always meant male/female bond.

Gays have NEVER been the norm. As I have said before, there are only times throughout history where they TOLERATED and not persecuted. Thats a far cry from saying they are anywhere close to being the norm for society. Don't put words in my mouth.

[DannyR]

you know Danny...you've been pretty loose with the "proofs" so far, but let's get something clear.....if you aren't going to provide links to back up your arguments, don't post them.......My bad. I thought most people would have a good knowledge of Nero's exploits. Its documented by Suetonius: NERO XXVII-XXIX.
He castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero s father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time.Nero also reversed the rolls too, dressing as the bride when he married Pythagoras. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269398?seq=6



the above in red are your exact words: "Um, sorry. Code specifically mentions gay marriage when they banned it."You going to slam me because the word "gay" isn't mentioned? As I said, you like to play word games. *lol*

It is a ban on men marrying men. That is gay marriage. Really, you have to do better than that.

[Yurt]

My bad. I thought most people would have a good knowledge of Nero's exploits. Its documented by Suetonius: NERO XXVII-XXIX.Nero also reversed the rolls too, dressing as the bride when he married Pythagoras. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3269398?seq=6


You going to slam me because the word "gay" isn't mentioned? As I said, you like to play word games. *lol*

It is a ban on men marrying men. That is gay marriage. Really, you have to do better than that.

you know danny, your arrogance and seemingly ignorance knows no bounds...word games are where i play with the meaning of your words to slightly or heavily change what you meant to say, IOW, i play with your words to either draw out your true intentions/meaning or i just make stuff up.

here, you used SPECIFIC words and even included the word "specifically." as such, i did not "play" with your words at all, i held you accountable to your words. no matter how you want to spin it, no word games were played. fact is, you made a specific claim and cannot back it up.

deal with it

[DannyR]

you know danny, your arrogance and seemingly ignorance knows no boundsBack at you.

You're being intentionally obtuse and twisting the meaning of what I said to its most literal sense. Sorry, play your word games elsewhere. I don't buy it.

[Yurt]

Back at you.

You're being intentionally obtuse and twisting the meaning of what I said to its most literal sense. Sorry, play your word games elsewhere. I don't buy it.

what i thought was arrogance has now been proven to be ignorance or possibly outright dishonesty. no word games were played, that is a fact. i used your EXACT words, you are lying that i played any games with your words. i honestly expected better of you.

[DannyR]

no word games were played, that is a fact. i used your EXACT words, you are lying that i played any games with your words. i honestly expected better of you.:lol: I'm sure you believe that to be true.

[Yurt]

:lol: I'm sure you believe that to be true.

that's because it is true :poke:

why don't you show us where i changed the meaning of your words or played any games with your words...

[DannyR]

why don't you show us where i changed the meaning of your words or played any games with your words...Already did so. I said the code specifically prohibited gay marriage, and the code was posted. It prohibits marriage between two men. That is gay marriage.

You are protesting because the word "gay" wasn't used, ignoring that the language is descriptive. Or did you really expect the Romans to speak English? :laugh2:

[Yurt]

lying sack of horsemuffins...


Code specifically mentions gay marriage

it either specifically mentions gay marriage or it doesn't....you made the claim, not me

i'm done discussing this as it is clear you have no desire to honestly discuss your claim and instead want to deflect on me. you have not proven i played with your words at all. you lied, deal with it.

[moderate democrat]

Already did so. I said the code specifically prohibited gay marriage, and the code was posted. It prohibits marriage between two men. That is gay marriage.

You are protesting because the word "gay" wasn't used, ignoring that the language is descriptive. Or did you really expect the Romans to speak English? :laugh2:

does the Latin word for "gay" translate to "homosexual"? I doubt it. If the Latin had indeed said "gay marriage", I would think that would have meant that marriages in which there were any gaiety would be illegal.

[Yurt]

does the Latin word for "gay" translate to "homosexual"? I doubt it. If the Latin had indeed said "gay marriage", I would think that would have meant that marriages in which there were any gaiety would be illegal.

rotflmao...:lol:

[The ClayTaurus]

you're putting the cart before the horse, or the ass before the penis, so to speak.....it isn't that I am trying to make gay marriage illegal.....gay marriage has always BEEN illegal.....gays want to make it legal because THEN people will start treating it as normal....I shouldn't have to demonstrate to keep the law from making the abnormal normal.....why should the law change such that I would HAVE TO protest the making of the abnormal normal....why not just keep it abnormal?......I've never suggested you're trying to make gay marriage illegal. And now you're again leaning on "because that's the way it's always been" as justification for it continuing.

[The ClayTaurus]

have you seen me petitioning the courts for an order stating that pink spandex should be deemed the appropriate attire for grocery shopping?......Irrelevant. The point is, this behavior is 100% legal and, yet, 100% not normal.

[PostmodernProphet]

Irrelevant. The point is, this behavior is 100% legal and, yet, 100% not normal.

how can it be irrelevant....without it, what is your parallel with gays going to court to demand the right to marry?......and if we are still talking about gay marriage, no, it isn't 100% legal....in fact, in the majority of states, it's 100% illegal....

[PostmodernProphet]

My bad. I thought most people would have a good knowledge of Nero's exploits.

you're joking, right?.....




It is a ban on men marrying men. That is gay marriage. Really, you have to do better than that.

no, as I pointed out, it doesn't speak of men marrying men, it speaks of a man marrying a woman....I think it's time you address that, since I have pointed it out twice now.....

[DannyR]

you're joking, right?No, I wasn't. Thats stuff I learned in 7th grade latin. Nero fiddling while Rome burns and marrying two dudes.



it doesn't speak of men marrying men, it speaks of a man marrying a woman....I think it's time you address that, since I have pointed it out twice now.....Um, sorry, but no wonder you are confused, because you are missing a key word there. It doesn't say marrying a woman.

The translation you quoted was "When a man marries in the manner of a woman". Big difference! Put in clearer english, marrying a dude! Acting the part of the bride! The law goes on and uses other colorful metaphors, such as Venus changing to another form and gender meaning nothing. There is absolutely no doubt its referring to two men together! Thus the point of the law, to outlaw gay marriage!

According to your own mistranslation, if it actually says a man marries a woman, then the law bans heterosexual marriage!

[PostmodernProphet]

Um, sorry, but no wonder you are confused, because you are missing a key word there. It doesn't say marrying a woman.

The translation you quoted was "When a man marries in the manner of a woman". Big difference! Put in clearer english, marrying a dude! Acting the part of the bride! The law goes on and uses other colorful metaphors, such as Venus changing to another form and gender meaning nothing. There is absolutely no doubt its referring to two men together! Thus the point of the law, to outlaw gay marriage!


how can you simply delete the object of the verb and alter the meaning of the sentence.....as I quoted earlier from the source I provided and you couldn't be bothered to......


When a man marries in the manner of a woman, a woman about to renounce men, what does he wish.....

it would seem to me that there are two possible ways to look at "a woman about to renounce men".....either it is the object of the word "marries" and the sentence is about a man marrying a certain type of woman (one who is about to renounce men)....or, it is an adjective describing the type of woman meant when they say "in the manner of a woman"....in which case "a woman about to renounce men" does not call to mind the description of a gay man.....

therefore, rather than arguing that "there is no doubt it is referring to two men together", I suspect that you ought to say "if you manage to ignore the two most likely interpretations of the wording, and throw in another which is completely contrived, you can take it as referring to two men marrying".......

now, getting back to your discussion, perhaps you can show where this Roman law actually "implies" gay marriage was acceptable.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Thats stuff I learned in 7th grade latin. Nero fiddling while Rome burns and marrying two dudes.



I vaguely recall a story about some Caeser who married his horse or something.....does that mean we can say Roman law permitted man-horse marriages and therefore it is wrong to prohibit man-horse marriages?......

[DannyR]

if you manage to ignore the two most likely interpretations of the wording, and throw in another which is completely contrived, you can take it as referring to two men marryingOh, thats just precious. You're totally wrong, but I'm game. Assuming it does NOT refer to two men marrying, then what exactly does the law mean? Because according to your strange interpretation, they just outlawed heterosexual marriage. :laugh2:


I vaguely recall a story about some Caeser who married his horse or something.....does that mean we can say Roman law permitted man-horse marriages and therefore it is wrong to prohibit man-horse marriages?Um, in an absolute dictatorship such as the later day Caesars enjoyed, yes, it means Roman law did permit man-horse marriages, at least under that particular ruler.

And as for it being wrong or right today, the point of this discussion was about the HISTORY of marriage, not the morality of it. Its perfectly legal TODAY for a lot of strange things to happen (Britney is a shining example of heterosexual marriage normality) but that doesn't mean we should prohibit those acts either.

[DannyR]

In any case, your posted translation is wrong in the later phrase. I didn't notice it before because I'm looking at a different translation, but it should read:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, as a woman who wants to offer herself to men, where sex has lost its place, where the offense is that which is not worth knowing, where Venus is changed into another form, where love is sought but not seen"

And there is absolutely no doubt in the translation. The latin is conveniently present. Lets look at the actual words: quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam

quum vir (as a man) nubit (marry) in feminam (like a woman, note the adjective, not subject!) viris (man again) porrecturam (offer/sacrifice).

The latin very specifically feminizes the male word for man. It does NOT use the word for wife or woman as the subject. This clearly means a man who is castrated, or acting as a woman.

But again, if it doesn't mean that, then please let me know what you think the goal of this law was, because according to you its to ban heterosexual marriages. :poke:

[PostmodernProphet]

Oh, thats just precious. You're totally wrong, but I'm game. Assuming it does NOT refer to two men marrying, then what exactly does the law mean? Because according to your strange interpretation, they just outlawed heterosexual marriage. :laugh2:


is that the best you can do?.....how about actually commenting on what I said......and I would say your claim that heterosexual marriage was outlawed is just as contrived.....what is it they condemned......marriage where "love is sought and not found".....seems to me they are not talking about either homosexual or heterosexual marriage but rather loveless marriage....

[PostmodernProphet]

[QUOTE=DannyR;354585]In any case, your posted translation is wrong in the later phrase. I didn't notice it before because I'm looking at a different translation, but it should read:

"When a man marries in the manner of a woman, as a woman who wants to offer herself to men, where sex has lost its place, where the offense is that which is not worth knowing, where Venus is changed into another form, where love is sought but not seen"
[quote]

link it or lose it....

[Truth Squad]

Science has determined that homosexuality and some forms of cancer can be traced to genetics. If homosexuality is a "choice," shouldn't cancer also be a "choice"?

[DannyR]

seems to me they are not talking about either homosexual or heterosexual marriage but rather loveless marriageOh wow, you really don't know when to give up a bad argument do you?

Point out one source that believes this is a ban on loveless rather than gay marriages. *lol*

[DannyR]

link it or lose it....You've already lost it! I can't believe you are going so far out on the limb because you refuse to admit you were wrong!

But I can play that game too: Post your own source of someone saying this section of the code bans loveless marriages and is not a prohibition on two men getting together!

But here is one copy I found with an easy google search:

http://books.google.com/books?id=e2f30fD4edQC&pg=PA101 for one.

I've got a copy of The Theodosian Code and Novels and Sirmodian Constitutions (http://www.amazon.com/Theodosian-Code-Novels-Sirmondian-Constitutions/dp/1584771461) in front of me.

---

But lets play your game. Lets pretend this law has nothing to do with banning gay marriage. That still leaves unchallenged the clear writings of Martial describing men getting married, and removes the primary objection of the day to it! You are shooting yourself in the foot with this stance, because you are basically saying the Romans didn't ban gay marriage!

[Yurt]

banning gay marriage does not, in and of itself, prove that gay marriage was allowed prior to the ban. it is entirely likely that men did not marry men as was the customary norm. and that a few people did want to break with customary norms and this caused a backlash, thus the need to actually spell out that gay marriage is not allowed.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely, Yurt. Laws are always added/revised to close loopholes that exist because the lawmakers didn't even consider the need to spell out the prohibition at the time.

[DannyR]

banning gay marriage does not, in and of itself, prove that gay marriage was allowed prior to the ban.Martial documented two such marriages. You've yet to address that.


it is entirely likely that men did not marry men as was the customary norm. and that a few people did want to break with customary norms and this caused a backlash, thus the need to actually spell out that gay marriage is not allowed.Hmmm, where did I hear that before. Oh yeah, I said it myself in post 114!

"For this law to have made it into the code implies that there were gay marriages people objected to in the first place." Of course it was a backlash! In fact, very likely to the very marriages Martial documented himself.

Doesn't change the fact that BEFORE the law gay marriages happened.

[PostmodernProphet]

Post your own source of someone saying this section of the code bans loveless marriages and is not a prohibition on two men getting together!

????....as I recall, I am the only one so far who has posted the code.....and the language you have claimed isn't in it.......

you have provided two links.....and one is not a copy of the code and says nothing about gay men and instead talks about castrated men (who I expect are no more interested in sex with a man than they are with a woman).....and the other is no more than an opportunity to buy a copy.....

thus, don't talk to me about posting sources....


That still leaves unchallenged the clear writings of Martial describing men getting married....

so provide us with a link to the "clear" writings of Martial......I'm getting tired of your unsupported claims....

[DannyR]

and one is not a copy of the code and says nothing about gay men and instead talks about castrated men (who I expect are no more interested in sex with a man than they are with a woman)Read it again. It provides a complete translation of the text in question.

And castrated men still have a useful hole when it comes to sex as far as the Romans were concerned.


and the other is no more than an opportunity to buy a copyI was just showing you what I was using. Author is a known scholar on the code, unlike yourself. Go to the library and pick the book up. I posted the translation word for word from it.


thus, don't talk to me about posting sourcesBecause you don't have any.


so provide us with a link to the "clear" writings of Martial......I'm getting tired of your unsupported claims....Unsupported? I posted the COMPLETE epigrams in question. :laugh2: Google the first line of each and wow, found them again.

First one is from book I:XXIV
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/martial_epigrams_book01.htm

Second is from book XII:XLIL
http://books.google.com/books?id=Ggf1u0mE7TUC&pg=RA3-PA563

Come back when you have a link yourself with that proof that the code in question bans loveless marriages. Right now you've got nothing, and your best argument is your own mistranslation of a passage contradicting pretty much everyone else. As you say, post it or lose it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Unsupported? I posted the COMPLETE epigrams in question.


look, I've paged back through all the pages of this thread....I don't see anything about what you are talking about......what epigrams....I don't intend to read through thirty pages of the link trying to guess what you are saying.....


Come back when you have a link yourself with that proof that the code in question bans loveless marriages. Right now you've got nothing, and your best argument is your own mistranslation of a passage contradicting pretty much everyone else. As you say, post it or lose it.

I posted a link to the code...something you still have not done.....I can read it, everyone else here can read it....if they don't agree with my interpretation of it they can come to their own conclusions....so far, the only person I have seen that agrees with your interpretation is you.....

be that as it may, even if your interpretation is correct it does nothing to argue that Rome believed gay marriage was acceptable...so Nero married a guy....from what I recall, Nero was not considered a very acceptable guy....maybe marrying a guy is what made everyone hate him.....that obviously wouldn't demonstrate that Romans believed in gay marriage.......and even if Rome believed gay marriage was acceptable it does nothing to prove that 21st Century America believed gay marriage to be acceptable....

so quite frankly, I don't understand why we are devoting this much time to the issue, other than to reach the conclusion you can't support your claims....

[Truth Squad]

I find it difficult to believe how many hardcore Republicans oppose homosexuality. Considering that the Bush government had so many parallels to gay life.
Bush and his flunkies screwed America up the butt for eight years. Left us with economic AIDS. Now they are dying a slow, painful death. Which is the best part.

[DannyR]

look, I've paged back through all the pages of this thread....I don't see anything about what you are talking about......what epigramsOf course you don't. :laugh2: If anything, you've proven how sloppy your own research is.

So lets review, shall we.

Whole argument about Roman law started when I said the following: "Doubt all you want, its a historical fact, documented by Martial and the cancellation of which is documented in the Theodosian Code." (post #93)

Ok, first part. The Epigrams are the Martial documents I talked about. I posted the complete text of the two in question in post #116. You asked for a link (as if I'd make them up), I provided them in post #156. And now you claim to know nothing about what I'm talking about?!


I posted a link to the code...something you still have not doneAs you said, you posted a link to the code. You want me to post it again? I'm the one who told you what code to link to in the first place. You provided it. Bravo. I however posted a better translation of it that what you did. #146. You asked for the link from where that came from (again, as if I'd make it up). I was using a physical book, but did dig up a link with the same translation which I posted as well. #151. (2nd paragraph on that page, lines 5-8)


so far, the only person I have seen that agrees with your interpretation is youAgain proof you have sloppy research skills. You don't even read your own links. From the text you linked first where you got the Code:
But there are occasional laws which seem to have been directed against homosexuality.The whole point of that page is to list laws against homosexuality, gay marriage and other deviant sexual practices. So your own source agrees the law is about regulating homosexual practices. How much more obvious does it have to be?

I in turn asked you to link just 1 (one) link from anybody saying the Code in question does NOT refer to men marrying other men, but in fact regulates "unloving" marriages as you implied. You have yet to do so.

As for others here, Yurt might not agree that the code in question implies gay marriage was legal before it has passed. As your own link stated, this is a debatable point which we argued about until he got caught up on the word "gay". However even he hasn't taken the unorthodox stance that the law we are discussing outlaws only UNLOVING marriages and isn't a ban on men marrying men. I think others know the limb you are standing on is a bit too thin for their comfort.


it does nothing to argue that Rome believed gay marriage was acceptable...so Nero married a guy....from what I recall, Nero was not considered a very acceptable guy....maybe marrying a guy is what made everyone hate him.....that obviously wouldn't demonstrate that Romans believed in gay marriageYou don't say. I agree with the above, because I have NEVER said this proved Rome "believed gay marriage was acceptable" Stop raising yet another strawman.

My argument has always been that gay marriage has in the past been "legal" before, and thus the word "marriage" (not just the English word mind you, but the concept) has not ALWAYS been exclusively that of a man and woman.

One more time: Legal and socially acceptable are not the same things. As I've repeatedly stated in this thread, gays have NEVER been more than at best tolerated throughout history, occasionally avoiding persecution. They enjoyed such a status in Greece and early Rome for a time. Again, that is NOT the same as saying it was acceptable. The Romans weren't singing the praises of gay men. So don't try derailing the thread even further by arguing some tangent that I'm trying to prove gay marriage was socially acceptable.


other than to reach the conclusion you can't support your claims.... Seems to me the major unsuported claim remaining in this thread is the one you made, that the Theodosian Code isn't about homosexual activity at all, but about men marrying women and having unloving relationships. Again, post a source confirming this strange opinion.

[hjmick]

I find it difficult to believe how many hardcore Republicans oppose homosexuality. Considering that the Bush government had so many parallels to gay life.
Bush and his flunkies screwed America up the butt for eight years. Left us with economic AIDS. Now they are dying a slow, painful death. Which is the best part.

In my nearly two years as a member of this board, I have seen some pretty silly, nay, moronic posts, but I do believe this one takes the cake. Management should save this one for posterity.

[The ClayTaurus]

how can it be irrelevant....without it, what is your parallel with gays going to court to demand the right to marry?......and if we are still talking about gay marriage, no, it isn't 100% legal....in fact, in the majority of states, it's 100% illegal....The point is, you continue to justify gay marriage remaining illegal because it being legal would normalize it. There are thousands of actions that are perfectly legal yet viewed as abnormal by society; hence, your logic that legal = normal is flawed. You then tried to bring in some tangential point about petitioning to make spandex the preferred attire. No one is petitioning that gay marriage is preferred over any other kind of marriage.

[PostmodernProphet]

I posted the complete text of the two in question in post #116.

excellent, now you have given us the ammunition with which to work....

from the introduction and the dedication to Caesar it would appear that the texts you quote are intended to be humorous, perhaps a bit slanderous comments about people.....is that not true?....

Would this perhaps be a parallel to something Jay Lenno might say about a political figure during his monologue?.....

If so, is it legitimate to use this in an attempt to determine what might have been considered acceptable or even actual within a culture?.....



As you said, you posted a link to the code. You want me to post it again? I'm the one who told you what code to link to in the first place. You provided it. Bravo. I however posted a better translation of it that what you did. #146.

and therein lies the problem....I didn't provide the translation, my link did.....the link I provided contradicts your claim....you, without evidence, claim your translation is superior.....I am not accustomed to letting my debate opponent declare himself the judge of the debate....




You asked for the link from where that came from (again, as if I'd make it up). I was using a physical book, but did dig up a link with the same translation which I posted as well. #151. (2nd paragraph on that page, lines 5-8)

which source rejects your interpretation as inaccurate....good job....



Again proof you have sloppy research skills. You don't even read your own links. From the text you linked first where you got the Code:The whole point of that page is to list laws against homosexuality, gay marriage and other deviant sexual practices. So your own source agrees the law is about regulating homosexual practices. How much more obvious does it have to be?

your claim is that the law permitted gay marriage.....the evidence you provided doesn't support that claim....obviously, you need to be more obvious....



I in turn asked you to link just 1 (one) link from anybody saying the Code in question does NOT refer to men marrying other men, but in fact regulates "unloving" marriages as you implied. You have yet to do so.

not true....the link I have provided speaks of a law prohibiting a man from marrying a woman, not prohibiting a man from marrying a man...

[PostmodernProphet]

You don't say. I agree with the above, because I have NEVER said this proved Rome "believed gay marriage was acceptable"

then we have nothing to argue about....and I am not sure why you started this argument in the first place....

gay marriage wasn't acceptable then, it isn't acceptable now....

[Missileman]

Absolutely, Yurt. Laws are always added/revised to close loopholes that exist because the lawmakers didn't even consider the need to spell out the prohibition at the time.

Given the times, it makes more sense that the ban was after the fact, based on some new morality, rather than a preventative measure.

[DannyR]

Would this perhaps be a parallel to something Jay Lenno might say about a political figure during his monologue?No, I see it more like mocking someone like the Octo-mom. The acts occurred, and he's making fun of them.



the link I provided contradicts your claimNo, the link you provided discusses gay marriage. You are still the only one saying it doesn't deal with that at all.


which source rejects your interpretation as inaccurateThat source also is entirely about gay marriage. How is it innaccurate? It certainly doesn't even come close to YOUR interpretation that the law was a about "unloving" marriages.


not true....the link I have provided speaks of a law prohibiting a man from marrying a woman, not prohibiting a man from marrying a man...*lol* wrong wrong wrong, absolutely wrong. And again, post a SINGLE SOURCE supporting that point of view. I've asked for that multiple times and you've ignored it, because your interpretation of the law is wrong, and nobody agrees with you.


then we have nothing to argue about....and I am not sure why you started this argument in the first place

I'm not the one who started the argument. I said proof that gay marriages were legal before existed, and provided that proof. You are the one arguing the facts.

[DannyR]

Given the times, it makes more sense that the ban was after the fact, based on some new morality, rather than a preventative measure.I even provided the inspiration. Martial's publishing of gay marriages and making them public. The ban on them came afterwards.

[PostmodernProphet]

No, I see it more like mocking someone like the Octo-mom. The acts occurred, and he's making fun of them.


my point....comedians make fun of events like the Octo-mom....things that are out of the ordinary and shock the senses......not things that are typical and taken for granted.....



No, the link you provided discusses gay marriage. You are still the only one saying it doesn't deal with that at all.and you are the one saying it does....the difference is, I can read the text which supports my position, I can't with yours.....



That source also is entirely about gay marriage.

"castrated men" does not equal "gay men"......castration affects the ability to use the equipment, not sexual predisposition.....



*lol* wrong wrong wrong, absolutely wrong. And again, post a SINGLE SOURCE supporting that point of view. I've asked for that multiple times and you've ignored it, because your interpretation of the law is wrong, and nobody agrees with you.

the text is there, if you don't like it tough....I am through with that part of this debate, it is going nowhere....



provided that proof. .

/shrugs....not in this thread....but don't bother....from what we have seen of the argument so far it is clearly irrelevant even if marriages WERE legal in Rome 2000 years ago.....they haven't been for the last 15 centuries or more....