Apologies to BK. You were right about gay marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

Marriage existed long before anyone considered it a "sacrament".

Not really. Marriage outside of the Christian sense was very different. It was not understood to be 'two way', husbands could dissolve their union for whatever reason they wanted. Wives could not do the same. I can't really say that marriage as we know it today existed before Christ.

While it can have a religious element, it is not inherently religious like, say, baptism.

Civil unions are not inherently religious. Marriage, on the other hand, is a quite different concept. The concept that marriage is for life, and that two people become one in marriage, is a religious concept.

The idea that people can shack up and live together, well that's not religious at all. It's also not really marriage, because it's just a contract on a piece of paper. Hence, civil unions.

If the state wants to regulate civil unions, I have no problem with it, but they really don't have any right to regulate the sacrament of Marriage, which is a church affair, no different from baptism and confirmation.

Bottom line it has secular, practical roots and religious folk don't have the right to declare a monopoly on it.

Actually they do, because your concept of 'marriage' really has nothing to do with the sacrament.

[Hueij]

Just strip Hieuj of his position. It's not right, Plomp, and you need to do something about it.

As for banning the topic, yeah, that's a real solution. Poly is all about free discussion.

Oy. Not even the courtesy to spell my name right And for your information, after the change of ownership of Apolyton I asked Robert to remove my staff title and privileges. I guess he forgot to remove the title.

And it's not my fault that a thread meant to poke some fun at you got out of hand.

Anyways, I have never had a thread with this many replies. Yeah me!!

[DaShi]

Please ban Ben.

[Hueij]

Not really. Marriage outside of the Christian sense was very different. It was not understood to be 'two way', husbands could dissolve their union for whatever reason they wanted. Wives could not do the same. I can't really say that marriage as we know it today existed before Christ.



Civil unions are not inherently religious. Marriage, on the other hand, is a quite different concept. The concept that marriage is for life, and that two people become one in marriage, is a religious concept.

The idea that people can shack up and live together, well that's not religious at all. It's also not really marriage, because it's just a contract on a piece of paper. Hence, civil unions.

If the state wants to regulate civil unions, I have no problem with it, but they really don't have any right to regulate the sacrament of Marriage, which is a church affair, no different from baptism and confirmation.



Actually they do, because your concept of 'marriage' really has nothing to do with the sacrament.

So you Christians are claiming marriage now? Or Marriage as you people spell it?

Us atheists shack up, you fine outstanding people marry. I think I get the picture.

[dannubis]

Bull****. The government should get out of marriage altogether, and let the churches regulate it as they see fit. People want to get married, join a church, and get the priest/pastor to bless you.

If you can't accept that, then don't get married. Shack up, do whatever the hell you want, but separation of the Church and state means that you get the state OUT of the Church rather than having the state regulating the Church.

in so many ways...

WHOOSH in every sense you can interpret it.

[MrFun]

Ben is entitled to his opinions. You don't have to agree with him, but he doesn't have to agree with people on things either. It doesn't make him, or them, wrong or right.
Having said that, I'm not a supporter of gay marriage either, although I do support gay unions and the benefits that go with it.
My opinion on it could conceivably change though.

Homophobic opinions are just as "respectable" as any other type of bigoted opinion - like racist opinions, for example.

[DaShi]

Or opinions about Texas.

[Hueij]

Edit: not a nice post. And I don't want any nasty posts in my thread.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was not understood to be 'two way', husbands could dissolve their union for whatever reason they wanted. Wives could not do the same.

I should follow Guy's post, but this idiocy needs to be contended with. In Rome, woman could also divorce their husbands after Rome entered what is considered the "classical age".

[Asher]

Edit: not a nice post. And I don't want any nasty posts in my thread.

I liked it

[Hueij]

I liked it

I know, but it rendered badly in Opera

[Solomwi]

I missed it.

[giblets]

Not really. Marriage outside of the Christian sense was very different. It was not understood to be 'two way', husbands could dissolve their union for whatever reason they wanted. Wives could not do the same. I can't really say that marriage as we know it today existed before Christ.

So you're saying marriage changed. In other words it can change again.

If Christians were able to change the conception of marriage, I see no reason why others can't come along and change it yet again. Christians have their own version of marriage, but they don't own marriage itself.

Civil unions are not inherently religious. Marriage, on the other hand, is a quite different concept. The concept that marriage is for life, and that two people become one in marriage, is a religious concept.

The idea that people can shack up and live together, well that's not religious at all. It's also not really marriage, because it's just a contract on a piece of paper. Hence, civil unions.

If the state wants to regulate civil unions, I have no problem with it, but they really don't have any right to regulate the sacrament of Marriage, which is a church affair, no different from baptism and confirmation.

Bull****. There is nothing inherently religious about monogamy. Religious people may think marriage has some special religious significance, but why should the government give these people special treatment? It shouldn't. Marriage is not inherently religious and to exclude people from it for religious reasons would violate separation of church and state. Your religious doctrines do not belong in government policy.

Actually they do, because your concept of 'marriage' really has nothing to do with the sacrament.

You can believe that marriage has some special religious significance if you want but you do not have the right to push your religious beliefs regarding marriage on others. In fact, there are some Christians who support gay marriage. Banning gay marriage prevents gay Christians who support gay marriage from exercising their religious beliefs. Shouldn't their religious freedom be respected?

If religious denominations like, say, the Catholic Church want to have their own definitions of marriage, that's fine, but the definition held by a particular religious group should not be the law of the land.

[BlackCat]

Not really. Marriage outside of the Christian sense was very different. It was not understood to be 'two way', husbands could dissolve their union for whatever reason they wanted. Wives could not do the same. I can't really say that marriage as we know it today existed before Christ.

Not true.

http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/wedding.shtml

[Thoth]

Please ban Ben from breeeding.

QFT.