Started By
Message
re: "Christians didn't invent marriage. Why do they think they can define it."
Posted on 4/23/14 at 12:50 pm to the808bass
Posted on 4/23/14 at 12:50 pm to the808bass
quote:
Or society has never recognized a "need" for gay marriage until the last 30 or so years. And by society, I mean virtually all cultures throughout time. And by virtually, I mean all recorded cultures.
Yeah, but should we be making decisions based on what our society used to do? I would post a list of examples of reprehensible things, but you're smart enough to see where I'm going.
0
Posted on 4/23/14 at 12:53 pm to the808bass
quote:
Or society has never recognized a "need" for gay marriage until the last 30 or so years. And by society, I mean virtually all cultures throughout time. And by virtually, I mean all recorded cultures.
The federal government didnt begin legislating marriage until the 1920s, when it wanted to prevent blacks and whites from marrying.
And gay couples were recognized by the state in Rome until the republic became an empire late in the last century BC. Im sure if I looked it up Id find others.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:26 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
And gay couples were recognized by the state in Rome until the republic became an empire late in the last century BC. Im sure if I looked it up Id find others.
No, they weren't. Two emperors married males (Nero's "spouse" was an unwilling boy and Elagabalus, a child emperor himself, may have married a man in a ceremony), but that's probably not a really good argument for the Roman government recognizing the practice.
No one disputes there were homosexual relationships. Nowhere of any consequence was it equated to marriage. Often times, the homosexual relationship would exist alongside a marriage. They understood marriage was for propagation.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:37 pm to the808bass
Oh look, I was right. A quick google search did turn up more 
LINK
LINK
quote:
Although state-recognized same-sex unions are becoming more accepted, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage.[1]
quote:
A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]
Posted on 4/23/14 at 1:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
No, they weren't. Two emperors married males (Nero's "spouse" was an unwilling boy and Elagabalus, a child emperor himself, may have married a man in a ceremony), but that's probably not a really good argument for the Roman government recognizing the practice.
No one disputes there were homosexual relationships. Nowhere of any consequence was it equated to marriage. Often times, the homosexual relationship would exist alongside a marriage. They understood marriage was for propagation.
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 1:39 pm
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:00 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned, and temporary relationships to highly ritualized unions that have included marriage
That's a broad statement that is not supported by the data even on the Wiki page.
If you'd actually read the section on Rome you'd see the following quote.
quote:
as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist.
So pretty much exactly what I said.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:18 pm to the808bass
Only a few examples we can prove 2000 years later.
The very fact that it was legal at all refutes your initial point.
The very fact that it was legal at all refutes your initial point.
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 4/23/14 at 2:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Only a few examples we can prove 2000 years later. The very fact that it was legal at all refutes your initial point.
Again from your own link they say that it's uncertain why the law was made outlawing it. as there's no real evidence of it existing on any scale in the first place.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:12 pm to KSGamecock
quote:The context of Matthew 6 is trying to get glory for yourself rather than giving glory to God by your actions. The point is that, as Christians, we should be praying, preaching, fasting, and everything else with God's glory and for pleasing Him, not trying to please other people or make ourselves look better in the eyes of other people.
Didn't Jesus say not to get in people's faces with your religion and to keep it in your home (Matthew 6:5-6)? I also think I remember something about politics and not being interested in it...a bit about Caesar and a coin...maybe I'm crazy.
If you preach, teach, exhort, or pray in public, it should be done solely for the purpose of advancing the gospel message and giving God glory. You shouldn't do it for selfish reasons.
And Jesus said nothing against Christians engaging in politics. He said that His kingdom was not of this earth, because many of the Jews were expecting a messiah that would be a king over physical Israel and release them from the control of Rome. Jesus did not come for that purpose.
The thing about giving to Caesar what belongs to Caesar has to do with respecting and obeying the government that God puts over us. Since our government was set up to allow us to speak freely and vote to elect representatives, we are actually obeying that command by engaging in civil politics.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:30 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I don't care who or what people want to wed
Hell yea! Does that inlude but not limited to:Father and Daughter(of age)?Brother and Sister(of age)?Grandmother and Grandaughter (of age)?Grandfather and Grandson (of age)?
If not,why not? Two consenting adults of age who love each other. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be married?
This post was edited on 4/23/14 at 4:43 pm
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:31 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
If not,why not? Two consenting adults of age who love each other. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be married?
Luckily it wasn't an Alabama fan making comments like that.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:38 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Potentially, but the government is (supposedly) made up of people who are interested in what we want. If most people want something or don't want something, the representatives tend to vote one way or the other to get involved.
I isnt your fault for voting how you choose, it is the governments fault for injecting themselves into marriage and limiting it for some people. The government shouldnt be giving the electorate the opportunity to limit marriage in the first place.
Personally, I'm fine with the government regulating that marriage should be between one man and one woman, especially since it fits what I think is morally right.
However, I would also be perfectly fine if the government got out of it entirely and only cared about the legal ramifications of the union in terms of dealing with divorce. I think the traditional view of marriage would be beneficial to society to uphold but it isn't a hill I'm willing to die on. If there is a ballot measure to prevent homosexual marriage from being legalized, I'd vote for it. But if the government got out of that business altogether, I'd be OK with that, too.
quote:Depends on who you talk to, I guess.
Nothing practical about making homosexual marriage illegal.
I'm of the view that a traditional marriage relationship is better for society and it should be promoted. As bad as homosexual marriage is in my mind, something even more detrimental to the family dynamic is no-fault divorce and the general lack of respect or sanctity of marriage, itself. But now we're getting into deeper issues about culture and the overall selfishness of humanity which lie at the root of those things.
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:42 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Hell yea! Does that inlude but not limited to:Father and Daughter(of age)Brother and Sister(of age)Grandmother and Grandaughter (of age)Grandfather and Grandson (of age)?
If not,why not? Two consenting adults of age who love each other. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be married?
I agree, why shouldn't they?
Posted on 4/23/14 at 4:47 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
Hell yea! Does that inlude but not limited to:Father and Daughter(of age)?Brother and Sister(of age)?Grandmother and Grandaughter (of age)?Grandfather and Grandson (of age)?
If not,why not? Two consenting adults of age who love each other. Why shouldn't they be allowed to be married?
Page 15 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News