No, you dont have to be a Christian to get married. But you might want to follow the guidelines of marriage to have a marriage. Why do folks think Christians want exclusivity?? Its hard to carry out Christ's work if you keep it bottled up. As for ancient Greeks or Egyptians, perhaps it wasnt called marriage back then. Perhaps what took place between men and women back then is looked back on now and called marriage because thats our word for it? Just wondering, do you have any texts(not original of course) talking about two men or women being married back then??
What guidelines are those, exactly? Well, since Theodosian Code outlawed it, it must have been legal before that. 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 - passed by the christian emperors Constantius and Constans) In Suetonius text about Nero (Life of Nero) he even talks about Nero marrying men: Besides abusing freeborn boys and seducing married women, he debauched the vestal virgin Rubria. The freedwoman Acte he all but made his lawful wife, after bribing some ex-consuls to perjure themselves by swearing that she was of royal birth. 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. 2 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,84 fondly kissing him from time to time. That he even desired illicit relations with his own mother, and was kept from it by her enemies, who feared that such a help might give the reckless and insolent woman too great influence, was notorious, especially after he added to his concubines a courtesan who was said to look very like Agrippina. Even before that, so they say, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, he had incestuous relations with her, which were betrayed by the stains on his clothing. He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched85 by his freedman Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered. I have heard from some men that it was his unshaken conviction that no man was chaste or pure in any part of his body, but that most of them concealed their vices and cleverly drew a veil over them; and that therefore he pardoned all other faults in those who confessed to him their lewdness.
The guidelines would be that of a man leaving his parents and taking a wife in marriage. Wives respecting their husbands, Husbands loving their wives(unconditionally). Tough for that to happen where there is no husband or wife in the relationship. That sort of thing. Cool read about Nero. But heads of state going above the law wasnt exactly what I was talking about.
Nero was but one example. The Theodosian code outlawed it for everyone. John Boswell's book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980) documents legally recognized same-sex marriages in ancient Rome.
Ah ok. Will have to check that out. Again, I think its the title that has a majority of Christians against it(not all, since there ARE some crazies out there) because to the Christians who care, marriage is sacred. And to them, its an affront of one of their core religious beliefs that marriage is from God, and homosexuality is not. And please, dont use the current rate of divorce as a weapon against Christians who dont want marriage to include homosexuals. Getting married does not require you to be Christian. Some may not be entering into the marriage with the attention it requires.
You misunderstand what I mean when I say care, I mean those who care about why homosexuals should not be allowed to enter into a marriage.
I won't lie, watching Landlord Landry throw hissy fits about the lives of other people is my new favorite activity in the D&D.
As far as this debate goes, marriage is a secular institution. If Christians really cared about preserving their exclusive sense of the term, they would be protesting all government-sancioned marriage. Drawing the line at gay marriage specifically betrays a true prejudice.
This is where the issue lies, Christians(most of those opposing gay marriage) feel marriage is a divine gift, so there is an oxymoron so to speak, since homosexuality is not divine. Again, its not about living in a bubble or whatever, since that would certainly prevent the Lord's work. My question to those gays wanting to have the title of marriage is why is it that important to you? I thought it was about the rights and what not, not the title.
I think when it comes to rights separate but equal has been shown not to work. Again why is the title of marriage important to atheists? Why is it important to other religions? I think the title of marriage has a significance in our society that goes beyond just religion. My question again, is if Christians think it's a divine gift why can they still not believe that while homosexuals are also getting married? If you feel it's a divine gift then accept it and be thankful of it as such. But if somebody else derives different significance from the title, why should you or anyone else try and stop them?
The marriage institute with hetro's is already broke. Why add even more complication? 50% divorce rate is too high. Kids lives are torn up because parents throw in the towel after a few years of marriage. You're not going to find too many people who will admit that they get married until they get tired of each other. Most are going for life because they "love" each other. Of course love and lust are two different definitions. Homo's are not interested in civil rights. If they were interested in that, then they would be satisfied with civil unions. They are more interested in being accepted by every individual. Like it or not, people have a right to be homophobic, racist, or any other negative trait society puts on an individual. Instead of further watering down and complicating the marriage institute, it needs to be reformed. Civil unions need to be better defined for easier separation w/out carrying on months of legal battles. Leave marriage completely out of the governments hands.
If you are arguing that the term "marriage" not be used by the government for both heterorsexual and homosexual marriages and they all be considered civil unions I would be fine with that.
Separate but equal has been shown to not be equal civil rights. Also why would homosexuals being married make them more accepted by everyone?
In the eyes of the government, if two parties have the same right as a man and a woman, is that not equal? Or is it not equal because they do not get to termed the word "marriage"? Or because someone being a homophob should be deemed illegal?(sociably acceptable) Let me propose this thought to you .. since we are only addressing the squeaky wheel. Can we agree that the whole premise behind gay marriage is to receiver the same government "perks" as a hetro marriage? So why can't one man and two women all love each other so much that they should be entitled to these same perks? Or is polygamy not acceptable not sociably acceptable enough to warrant "civil rights"? What about a brother and a sister? Would incest cover this? After all, 100 years ago we were so barbaric that we would burn homo's and anyone caught in an interracial relationship. I personally think we are still too barbaric to recognize incest and polygamy. Lets throw in another potential group. In order to be married, do you have to be having sex with the other person? Of course not. So why can't two cousins be soul mates but not be involved in incest? Why not throw in animals? I would think they would have the same rights as homo's. I can go on and on, and yes, the courts will be filled with these scenarios. I say all that to explain why allowing "gay marriage" waters down the definition into nothing but confusion. Instead of screwing up something more, fix it. Also why would homosexuals being married make them more accepted by everyone?[/QUOTE] I don't know? Why are they not happy with a civil union?
Isn't marriage a church deal anyway? What is the difference between civil unions and marriage? Aren't they the same in the eyes of the law? If the issue is one of insurance coverage than make civil unions equal to marriage. DD
I think that is a huge issue, but not the only issue behind gay marriage. I don't care if there are multiple partner marriages, though that would have to be a different isntitution because inheritence without a will, child custody, who has permission to pick up or enroll children in schools, college financial aid status, insurance benefits, and a list of other parts of our beurocracy would have to change, so it would be a completely different institution as RocketsJudoka has said. That just isn't the case with homosexual marriage. With incest there are health factors which would make it sensible to be illegal. Actually not consumating the marriage is grounds for annulment and lack of intimacy is also used in divorce cases.
Not everyone is going to agree to the definition of marriage. Some will define it as a religious ritual that the state recognizes and some will define it as a man and a woman. Some will see a civil union as an alternative to a marriage for homo's and others will see it as the government will recognize two people being legally united. Either way you look at it, Prop 8 is all about redefining the word marriage and less about the rights. While wiki is not an all inclusive answer to all debates, here are some ideas presented on how its defined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
