California and Mob Rule

[Dinner]

Romans and Greeks both had gay marriages

Wrong.

It's funny that a Roman Empire outlawed gay marriage after converting to Christianity. I mean, if there was no gay marriage why make a law outlawing it? Doesn't that imply that it was actually happening?

[Dinner]

There were also marriage between men, at least among the Romans, as this practice was outlawed in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [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. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

In spite of this, gay unions are believed to have continued in some areas until the 12th century.[2][3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

I love the smell of pwnage in the morning.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's funny that a Roman Empire outlawed gay marriage after converting to Christianity. I mean, if there was no gay marriage why make a law outlawing it? Doesn't that imply that it was actually happening?

I didn't say that the Romans didn't have gay marriage. I was calling bull**** on your claims that the Greeks did.

[Dinner]

Oh, how Drake twists and turns.

BTW Greeks actually had a temporary "marriage" where older guys would take a male teen as a lover until he reached his 30's when he was expected to marry a woman. Pederasty was a formalized pseudo-marriage like institution.

[Drake Tungsten]

The Greeks didn't have gay marriage. I read all the crap you're going through now yesterday. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[Dinner]

Admit you were wrong about the Romans and I'll admit the Greeks only had an informal gay marriage. BTW I read most of this stuff months ago.

[Drake Tungsten]

I never said the Romans didn't have gay marriage, so I'm not wrong. I said you were wrong about both the Romans and the Greeks having gay marriage, which is accurate.

[Dinner]

Liar.

[Drake Tungsten]

You can't call me a liar when the posts clearly back me up.

[Dinner]

Liar.

[Jon Miller]

Oh, how Drake twists and turns.

BTW Greeks actually had a temporary "marriage" where older guys would take a male teen as a lover until he reached his 30's when he was expected to marry a woman. Pederasty was a formalized pseudo-marriage like institution.

It wasn't marriage though.

JM

[Dr Strangelove]

Considering that my mother is a damn widow, yeah I can see you playing the widow card.

I'm not going to dignify the rest with a response.

So you see my point about there having to be an official state sanction of marriage, which in turn requires that the state assume a degree of control.

When it conducts 'marriages' I believe to be fraudulent, then it has lost it's purpose. When the state issues benefits to polygamous marriage, which I also believe to be fraudulent, then what's the purpose of having a check against fraud, when fraud is the name of the game?

I was really thinking of a more legal definition than your opinion.

[SlowwHand]

Will you take that hat off? How can anyone take you seriously when it's 90 degrees outside and you're running around with a santa hat on?

[Kuciwalker]

Why can't you marry your car? Because your car isn't a 'person' and so it can't enter contracts. THEREFORE CONTRACT LAW (and by extension any possible marriage law) IS DISCRIMINATORY etc. by your definition.

Cars don't have moral standing in my books, so I'm willing to live with this "discrimination" without the state needing to prove anything

Yes, obviously. My point was that your definition of discrimination is meaningless because it applies to every single case, and therefore it's reasonable for me to reject it.

[Ming]

You'd be able to get a civil union same as you do with a marriage license, it would be just like getting your driver's license renewed. What's the issue?

The issue is the term and meaning of "marriage". Marriage isn't something reserved for religion... it's for people who want to commit to spend their lives togethers as partners in love. You keep wanting to keep marriage to only those that are religious.... which is pure crap.

And some religions stone people for being baptised. What's your point?

Another irrelevent point... as expected from you when you have no real counter argument or any real argument to begin with.

They could do marriage just fine. They could have whatever marriage they wanted. It just wouldn't be recognised by anyone outside of their church. That's the side benefit. The muslims could have all their polygamy, the hindus could have their child brides, etc, etc, etc.

They want the right to have all of their friends, family, co workers recognise their marriage... not just sticking to those that share their faith or lack of.
You may only want to associate with others that believe the same crap you do, but most people don't.

If you have a desire to get married, and all, why is that an issue? You could get a civil union from the government, but if you want something more then that, why not go to one of those churches?

It's only your opinion that your specific religion makes it more. If you want to call what you have a sacrament, and think it means more, your problem, not ours. We do want more, we want marriage, not just some silly civil union.
And we have the same to right to it as you and your specific religion. Again, you have no monopoly on marriage.

It's a religious concept, like baptism.

Marriage is not just a religions concept... deal with reality.

Well I still think Theban's proposal is very sensible, and it makes much more sense then the status quo.

It's may be sensible to you because it gives you what you want, which is a monopoly on marriage. Maybe Theban doesn't mind religion coopting the term "marriage", but many would disagree with that.

Again, feel free to call your superstition "holy matrimony"... but the term marriage, and all it means isn't something reserved for your sect of believers.
It is NOT just a relgious concept... no matter how much you want to hide behind your lies.