How did we get to Gay Marriage?

My Recent Posts

Marriage is an old and generally religious concept that is older than Christianity.  In all cultures marriages had rules, and those rules varied tremendously depending on when and where you are.  The rules and obligations are so different that even in the US a person who is married in one Christian Church many not be considered to be really married by another church.

 

Even though it’s true that many churches don’t recognize marriages performed in other churches, thought our history, members of one church accepted marriages their church did not sanction as valid and respected them in every other way that was not religious.  That never meant, for example, that a married Protestant couple would be accepted as properly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church, but the Catholic’s didn’t care about anything else the Protestant couple did, including entering into a state provided “Marriage Certificate or License” that had no religious component in it.

 

Marriage Certificates and Licenses have only existed in the US since the mid-19th century.  Before that there were religious marriages and common law marriages.  For much of our history the only people who got religious marriages were those who were deeply religious, the rest just lived together?

 

State issued Marriage Certificates and Licenses were invented by people who wanted to restrict marriages to those unions they approved, for example preventing black people from marrying white people.  Over time that purpose disappeared and was replaced with financial obligations, benefits, and inheritance rights.

 

State marriages do not fulfill any religious obligation, or qualify the people who get them to any religious standing in any religious institution.  Since they have never had an impact on the religious institution of marriage they have been pretty much unopposed by every major religious group.  Then came Gay Marriage and the world fell apart.

 

Many religious groups became incensed over the thought that Gay people could get a State issued Marriage Certificate or License and strongly objected, usually on religious grounds.  Their religion says Gay Sex is a sin, and they don’t want the state to allow Gay people to be given a Marriage Certificate. 

 

I wouldn’t suggest it would be right for us to force religious institutions that believe a Gay lifestyle is a sin, to accept openly Gay members in their church, or marry them, but I sure think they have no right to object if the State sells them a Marriage Certificate.  Gay couples are no more or less out of compliance with their religion than Atheists, or people from other countries whose religious practices are also not acceptable in the eyes of many churches and they never object when they get married by the state.   A state issued Marriage Certificate or License doesn't compete with a religious marriage, so religious people shouldn't care if the state lets people buy them for their dogs.

Comments

Autumn Cote Added Aug 13, 2018 - 5:29pm
Please note, it's against the rules to post articles here unless you comment on the work of others.  As always, many thanks for your participation with Writer Beat!
Riley Brown Added Aug 13, 2018 - 8:02pm
Autumn, My last comment was on the 12th.  It was long, I thought well thought our, serious, not disrespectful and appears to have been deleted. 
 
I wish there was a meter we could see when we feel inspired to write, that shows our current standing so we would know if we are allowed to author another topic.
James Travil Added Aug 13, 2018 - 10:51pm
Just for the record, my church, The Church of Satan, does not oppose gay marriage (which we just call marriage), or any lawful marriage on religious grounds. Our religion recognizes that same sex marriage predates the Christian concept of marriage (which we reject anyhow) and that the "religion" of Christianity has no ownership of covenant of marriage whatsoever. The notion that it does is just more Christian historical revisionist lies. 
A. Jones Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:04pm
that same sex marriage predates the Christian concept of marriage
 
Aside from the subjective whims of your own perverted imagination, what historical evidence have you for that statement?
James Travil Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:10pm
Marriage existed for literally thousands of years in the world in places like ancient Egypt, dumbass Alex Jones! It's well known and obvious to anyone who has even a rudimentary knowledge of history. Christianity only goes back to the year one BCE whereas ancient Egypt is well-known to predate that by at least 3000 years. Dumbass. Go back to Infowars. 
James Travil Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:36pm
FYI for about a hundred thousand results (evidence) proving that ancient Egypt had marriage copy and paste the following into your browser: https://www.google.com/search?q=marriage%20in%20ancient%20egypt&client=puffin-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-
(or just search "marriage in ancient Egypt")
For even more results about the antiquity of ancient Egypt (MORE evidence!) search "the history of ancient Egypt". Therein is proof positive (that Alex Jones is an idiot, among other things). 
EXPAT Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:48pm
Riley. Unless a person was marooned on a deserted island, they know how Gay Marriage was forced on society. You are beating a dead horse. Society has accepted perversion and all sorts of abhorrent behavior as acceptable. What you stick up your ass, or suck on is no longer shocking, or of interest.
 
Marriage, as a social institution, is no longer tradition. Some still practice it for religious reasons, but it no longer is a legal commitment. This was not the result of Gay marriage. The words, "let no man put asunder." or "till death us do part." no longer are applicable, destroying the original concept; which was to provide a stable environment to raise a family. i.e. children.
 
The Churches interest was in raising children in the faith. That is why marriage between different faiths was forbidden. It was also in the interest of society, to have a stable family. But all that has been eliminated, by Progressive liberation and rights assigned where no rights exist. i.e. no fault divorce.
 
Nobody in their right mind, both Gay and Straight, wants to subject themselves to the chaotic Legal system, that assigns your assets to a former partner!
Riley Brown Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:53pm
A Jones, my perverted imagination aside, I would implore you to notice that the Old Testament which was all written before Christ was born, has many references to marriage. 
 
I'm assuming you're not a well educated Christian, because all the practicing Christians I know are very aware of that.
 
Although you might not recognize the validity of marriages in the ancient world, China had marriage traditions going back about 1000 years before Christ was born.  In India I see evidence of marriages going back to 400 BC.  The Manu Samhita that was written in around 200 BC, is known to have laid down the marital laws, which are followed even today.
 
Just because someone is perverted does not mean they can't also know what they are talking about.
Riley Brown Added Aug 13, 2018 - 11:56pm
James, I authored this forum because I think most people base their opinions about what should and should not be permitted on very convenient and popular misconceptions about the history of marriage. 
 
I only hope to enlighten them so they view things in a more realistic context. 
Michael B. Added Aug 14, 2018 - 12:03am
I gotta ask...have you ever been married? To a man, a woman, or...something else? Unless you meet the above-mentioned criteria, WHO THE FUCK are you to be writing about marriage? However, if you speak from some kind of experience, I'll eat my comments, lol.
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:01am
Mostly reasonable post. I had personal reasons for opposing gay marriage but in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't THAT big of a deal for the reasons the author states. 
 
That being said, we are entering interesting times because now many homosexuals feel like the State has changed sides in this issue (and it doesn't have to be a war, but that's what it's been and what it remains).
 
It used to be that the State seen as 'on the side' of conservatives and Christians. And unfortunately laws were written that persecuted homosexuals. That was bad. It wasn't a state concern what consenting adults did behind closed doors. The police should be catching criminals not knocking down doors of otherwise peaceful people and hauling them off to jail for their sexual habits.
 
But that happened in the now distant past. And it appears many feel like it's payback time today. So leftists and gay people think the State is now a club for them to pursue their political enemies with (which happen to be conservatives and Christians). And that's bad too.
 
It seems the author and I both agree that...not everyone agrees on stuff. But we all have to live on the planet together. So we can try to get along or we can turn everything into a battle. Trump unfortunately is a symptom of what battles can result in. Christians are starting to feel persecuted (especially cake bakers and photographers) so they vote for a pretty extreme, yet strong president to protect their rights. 
 
I read all the time on comment boards for news articles where Democrats say conservatives are hypocrites. Where are their 'family values' if they are voting for a man like Trump. I shake my head and think they are about 15 years too late. Those days are over. They want a strong man to protect their rights today. If he's a bad person, oh well, but at least he's protecting them. 
 
Finally, I'll add that not all people on the Right agree with me. There are, for lack of a better word, I'll call them whackjobs, that think that America is the earthly incarnation of the 'New Jerusalem' and having immoral laws on the books or allowing for things that are against Christianity is somehow an affront to God, and will bring terrible retribution from the Almighty. (These are the 'American Exceptionalism' folks, the 'indepensible nation' Puritan notions). And there is no arguing with people like that. Just leave them be. 
Michael B. Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:20am
What a nice and typically FUCKING FAGGOT FUCKING LIMEY articulation of how the aforementioned FUCKING FAGGOT FUCKING LIMEY asshole you are. Thank goodness that you are in such a far corner of the world! Gawd, what a pussy-whipped bunch you are!
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:05am
@Michael B - If you want to convince someone of your point of view, does using the law as a club to threaten them with punishment often 'work' to convince them? 
James Travil Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:22am
But Michael, seriously, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel, lol!!! 
Flying Junior Added Aug 14, 2018 - 3:34am
It's a good question, Riley.  But your discussion was a little bit weak.
 
I blame Denmark!  Just kidding.  But they were light years ahead of Britain and the U.S. in tolerating people for who they were.  They had men kissing and holding hands in public way back in 1964.  The real swingers had lipstick.
 
Of course, certain parts of the world are simply more liberal.  Hawaii comes to mind.  But most of the culture shift that we know took place in the good ole U.S.A.
 
During the Stonewall Riots in New York City in 1969, the cops were still raiding clubs and filling up paddy wagons with femmes and fags to cart them off to jail.  About this time the Kinks released Lola.
 
For the next thirty years, even gay-friendly cities had their gay communities safely tucked away in their own parts of the city.  San Diego had Hillcrest.  San Francisco had the Castro.  New York had Fire Island.
 
Then in the late 1990s with the explosion of the internet, gay tourism became a big thing.  That's why I always say, "Gay is hot!"  It's from an internet promotion for gay-friendly cities.
 
Clinton was still too square.  Don't ask, don't tell was just a continuation of the same old shit.  The Army always had its fitness fags.  The Navy always had its, "Seafood."  But it did prevent some dishonorable discharges which were based solely upon spying and innuendo.  As usual, the U.S. military has been on the vanguard of new civil rights.  We hammered it out.  There was much controversy about troop readiness, cohesion, morale, every kind of excuse.  What triumphed was simply individuals who proved themselves to be good soldiers.
 
Then people woke up.  They started to see that kids raised by gay parents seemed to be healthy and normal.  Gay people wanted to marry.  They wanted ordinary lives where they were not outcasts.  Employers and Health Insurance companies began offering insurance for domestic partners.  States began recognizing homosexual couples and their right to tie their wagons together.  Hospitals began allowing gay partners to visit their loved ones.
 
It's just the right thing to do.  It makes people happy.  I can't believe all of the antiquated anti-homosexual crap I read on the WB somehow cloaked in Christianity as if God really did hate fags.
 
It's about tolerance and humanity.  And fitness fags!
Autumn Cote Added Aug 14, 2018 - 4:37am
I owe you an apology.  I recall you commenting in this article and the reason I didn’t see it in your comment history is because the author is deleting comments. 
opher goodwin Added Aug 14, 2018 - 6:43am
Marriage has a religious basis but for antitheists like me it is just a public vow of commitment. I can't see why gender should come into it.
Stone-Eater Added Aug 14, 2018 - 7:16am
Marriage is an old-fashioned system to define financial security for the whole family. No more than that. That religious brimborum is just a method to keep churches in the boat so they can profit in one way or another, for example by church tax as we still have it in Switzerland, although most people here which are religious believe in Jesus at most but not in the old testament or the creation of the world or a god itself.
 
The Jesus message is the stuff that keeps them together in faith.
 
Here. living together without marriage is by now more common since the material dependence of either party in marriage doesn't exist anymore - both partners work usually and are independent. Many girls I knew got married for the only reason that they can wear a marriage robe, are at the center of attention and get nice jewelery LOL
EXPAT Added Aug 14, 2018 - 7:19am
opher.
Marriage was never just a public vow of commitment. That is what a two party lease, or a partnership is for. It was always about providing a stable environment for children! The family was the backbone of society, and what family law is all about.
 
But tradition, and family values have been destroyed. There is no longer anything to believe in, and society is falling apart! We are already seeing what a lack of values has done to the millennial's, and current generation.
Who will raise the next generation? IF THERE IS ONE!
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:20am
Michael B, this forum is about history and even if I'd been married for 100 years that experience would not be relevant in the larger picture.
 
I took the time to research the history of marriage to see where it comes from and how the concepts associated with it have changed over time and it was enlightening to me so I thought it might be thought provoking to others.
 
Do you have ANYTHING to contribute to the forum?
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:30am
Cullen, thank you for a thoughtful reply.  I don't consider the mostly religious opposition to Gay marriage to be just a bunch of wack-jobs, although there are some in every large group of any kind. 
 
The most reverent and deeply religious are "true believers", who I often think take the stand that mortal man can't alter the word of God to suit  our own contemporary sensibilities, but as I pointed out, many easily overlook other trespasses that are equally egregious in the "eyes of God", according to their religion.
 
I think it would be nice if they became acquainted with the tremendous variety of other non-compliant "marriages", that they don't object to, and conclude that Gay marriage is just one more that doesn't have their religion's blessings.  I'm good with that.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:37am
Flying Jr, I think one day the belief that Gays should not be allowed to get a state issued marriage certificate will be considered just as outdated as the belief that marriage certificates would not be given to couples of different races, like black and white.
 
I do deplore all the media coverage that focuses so much on sexual issues because they are sensational and improve ratings by upsetting people.  Marriages include sex but that's hardly what they are all about.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:38am
Autumn, no problem, usually you are right and you have never blocked me so I'm good.  I do wish there was an indicator that would let a person like me know when they are stepping out of bounds.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:45am
Opher, the state issued marriage certificate is what's being discussed in this forum and it has nothing to do with religion.  It's really no more or less than a fiscal contract, and as such shouldn't probably even be called a marriage. 
 
I'm guessing people who weren't religious enough to get married in a religious ceremony envied those who could and tried to name this a marriage certificate so they would feel like they had something similar.
 
Think about it, many religious people dislike the fact that two Gay people can walk into a government office and buy a contract that obligates them to each other financially.  If it wasn't called a Marriage Certificate, they wouldn't even care.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Aug 14, 2018 - 12:17pm
There was once a German kike who suggested that most of the WB rules could be automated.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I have walked through streets with gay bars, gay clubs, gay hostels, gay brothels....and I came to the conclusion that gays shouldn't be just allowed to marry, they should be convinced.
The Mogget Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:14pm
@Riley Brown
This is a very good story telling us the history of marriage in your point of view, which informs your opinion point at the end. What would take this to the next level would be some citations or quotes that reinforce your story in either demonstrating to us that your version of history is true (or at least informed by some evidence), or by confirming your analysis of the story.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 14, 2018 - 1:50pm
I remember John Waters saying that he thought the benefit of being gay is that he didn’t have to get married.....
One of the funniest stand-up routines I’ve ever seen.
 
That being said I think it’s great that two people committed to each other can make it official.  This gives them the ability to control aspects of their lives (like inheritance) that family might interfere in.  It also allows two people to receive benefits like tax breaks that heterosexual couples receive.
 
I personally never cared, if the church you belong to allows same sex couples to marry then do it that way.  Otherwise the state can do it for you.
 
 
Ryan Messano Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:03pm
 
Homosexuality ought to still be illegal in America.  A rogue SCOTUS legalized homosexuality and homosexual marriage in 2003 and 2015 respectively. 
 
Homosexuality being normal is based on the Kinsey report's junk science.
Ryan Messano Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:05pm
The sex drive is for two purposes.  Marriage between a man and a woman and children.  Not rocket science!
Benjamin Goldstein Added Aug 14, 2018 - 2:32pm
I thought the sex drive was for rocket science.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 3:44pm
The Mogget, what part of the "story" have you found it difficult to document on the internet? 
 
I don't write books in forums because no one wants to read that much documentation, especially since they can look it up so easily themselves.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 3:48pm
Jeffrey Kelly, I always thought the Gay community was lucky that the state would not sell them a marriage certificate especially after they tried to give them all the other rights without it.
 
How many straight people would love to say, aw Honey you know I'd marry you if I could, of course I love you but they can't.  They have to put up or shut up and then half of them end up in a rotten marriage and spend a fortune on attorneys to get a divorce. 
 
I'm sure the attorneys were fighting for Gay Marriage, even more than most of the Gay community.
Riley Brown Added Aug 14, 2018 - 3:53pm
Ryan, you may find it hard to believe but sex can be fun, promotes bonding, and is enjoyed by millions of people every day who have no desire for it to end in a pregnancy.
 
People who don't want to be married or have children, like seniors, often have sex just because it feels good. 
 
If I found out I could never have kids I would still want to have sex and can't imagine someone like you who would never have sex again.
Flying Junior Added Aug 14, 2018 - 5:46pm
Ryan had sex?
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 14, 2018 - 8:45pm
To those who have read the recent Alexander Hamilton biography by Chernow know that he was considered to have been a bastard. His mother in the 1740's or 50's in the poor Caribbean island of Nevis / St. Kitts left his father and 'shacked up' with another man and had him and his brother. There were church records of marriages, baptisms, deaths, and so it was easy to check out and his political enemies obviously did so. And that was an insult hurled at Hamilton by his enemies during the 1790's where he was serving as Treasury Secretary. 
 
Andrew Jackson's wife was considered to be bigamist because she was alleged to have still been married to her first husband when she married him. (The divorce came after the second marriage.) This was an issue in the presidential campaign of 1828 and considered to have been a knock against Jackson (so much so that his wife died of a heart attack before he could be sworn in). 
 
I don't know that you could say 'the only people who married were the deeply religious'. If a woman shacked up with a man and got pregnant, they (usually) were considered to be married. Married. They were considered to be married. But it seems that most people got a church wedding and it was officially recorded. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:03pm
CIVIL Birth Certificate, CIVIL Marriage Certificate and CIVIL Death Certificate. 
 
It is all merely state control. All in all, you are just another brick in the wall. The all caps name is registered at birth as a legal fiction and ward of the State ... thus the need to have the mother's maiden name. 
 
That being said; on the one hand, marriage is a private agreement or contract between two individuals, on the other hand a religious commitment from one person to another ... wherein does the government have the right to control or regulate either? 
 
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 14, 2018 - 10:45pm
Isn’t rocket science a sexual position?
A. Jones Added Aug 14, 2018 - 11:00pm
Marriage existed for literally thousands of years in the world in places like ancient Egypt
 
Um, Shit-for-Brains, take your head out of your co-religionist's ass and first read carefully what you wrote, and then what I wrote. Once more:
 
"Our religion recognizes that same sex marriage predates the Christian concept of marriage"
 
SAME SEX MARRIAGE. SAME SEX MARRIAGE. SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
 
Provide evidence that SAME SEX MARRIAGE, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, SAME SEX MARRIAGE, predates the Christian concept of marriage. Got it? Let me know if I need to repeat anything you wrote 5 or 6 more times.
Michael B. Added Aug 15, 2018 - 12:14am
Riley, my dear! You have it all wrong! You remind me of snotty girls who respond to crude male insults by insulting them even more...in French, lol. Either that, or a swift kick to the balls! Anyway, why do you not disclose your gender? You obviously doesn't think that it matters, but inquiring minds want to know!
 
BTW, the fact that I contribute to this forum actually rates me as...contributing to this forum....duhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
Jeff Jackson Added Aug 15, 2018 - 1:35am
When you are married, your "partner" becomes your property. As I said in a paper long ago, marriage is the personalization of private property. As an institution, it is supposed to bring stability to society.  There are groups like Mormons, who really believe in marriage, so much that the men do it several times with various women.
Eric Reports Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:30am
Obama illegally pushed gay marriage thru the Supreme Court. 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 15, 2018 - 9:20am
I’m sure if it makes you feel better to think that you go ahead, Eric.
Riley Brown Added Aug 15, 2018 - 11:32am
Michael B, can you please provide me with examples showing how I got it all wrong, and evidence I can use to correct my misconceptions.
 
I can't ell from your post if you think I have my dates mixed up or if you think I don't understand what God wants.
 
I don't think a person's gender, or race determines their intelligence and or ability to make positive contributions to internet forums.  I apologize if that puts you in an uncomfortable position.
TexasLynn Added Aug 15, 2018 - 12:15pm
Riley, thought provoking post as usual.  I’ll try to add to your thread/discussion from my Christian perspective
 
First, of course marriage predates the forming of the Christian church.  Reading the Torah and Old Testament make that clear.  I would also have no reason to suspect it didn’t exist in other pre-Christ cultures as well.  It’s almost as if some ancient force instilled the concept of marriage into our very being.
 
Marriage, I think has many components that have evolved over the centuries; secular, social, and religious.  The secular/social side of the equation has much to do with protecting money and property.  The religious side of the equation has more to do with protecting culture, morality, and family.  Yes, yes, I understand the secular side would also claim the moral high ground as well.
 
As for your history… and not that I’m questioning your stated facts, but I would like to know the sources for some of your assertions.  Are you talking about just the U.S.?  I thought I’ve read/heard of marriage licenses well before that (the 19th century) in England.  Where are you getting the stated purpose (restrict undesirable marriages like inter-racial) for the enactment of such licenses?  I can see control being one reason… a tax on a popular product being another.  Do you have any data on the percentage of common law vs religious marriages in our history?  Please don’t misunderstand my questions to be a dismissal of your points or a demand that you go on a documentation hunt.
 
Moving on to more recent history, I was, of course, against state sanctioned gay marriage; and that (admittedly) was largely due to my religious association of marriage as something holy in the eyes of my God.  I think I would have been much more open to the idea if it had been pushed by another word, like “civil union” … but that genie is already out of the bottle.
 
In this push, there is no doubt that there was an aspect of the secular left and the LBGT activists wanting to force a moral equivalence upon Christians.  That push continues today where the left seeks to punish Christians (their speech, their livelihood) for not just accepting but embracing LBGT demands.  The left will extract heavy consequences on those who refuse to bow to their secular LBGT god in the future.  Loss of employment, loss of property, jail will not be far behind from the likes of these “fascist”.  I’m glad a few understand the importance of religious liberty, but way too many have lost any understanding of basic human rights (including freedom of religion).
 
I understand your argument that the religious among us (including me) should not put such stock or concern into what the state sanctions.  But, I don’t completely buy into that argument.  As a society, what we “tolerate” speaks to our societal health and overall values.  Laws are simply a society drawing up boundaries.  It comes down to drawing the line somewhere… we’re just debating where that line is.  Age of marriage consent, polygamy, marriage within family relations, legal marriage of animals… gay marriage… they all speak volumes about our society. 
 
We, as a society recently moved that line concerning gay marriage and no so much movement on these other “lines”.  I don’t think it is correct to have no concern (being secular or religious) on what the society we belong to decides is now OK.  Voicing our opinions and concerns to affect where the line is drawn is only natural… thus “no” on the licenses for dogs.
Dino Manalis Added Aug 15, 2018 - 12:40pm
 Marriage is beyond love, it's a commitment to the family no matter what happens.
Riley Brown Added Aug 15, 2018 - 5:10pm
Texas, so may questions and issues in one post...  Thank  you for asking respectfully, its nice to see.
 
When I wrote about marriage licenses I did specify in the US, and am very aware different entities in Europe also had licenses long before we did. 
 
With regard to states using them to restrict marriages, interracial marriage licenses have only been available in all states since 1967, following a supreme court decision, Loving vs.Virginia, that invalidated state laws that forbid those unions. 
 
No I don't know the ratios between common law and religious marriages, but know they varied greatly depending on when and where you are talking about.  I think early on in US history churches were only usually associated with population centers, and lots of very rural people didn't live near them.  If you were born at home and the nearest Church was over a day of travel away, I doubt you belonged to that Church or thought about going there to get married.
 
I do realize that some of the objections to Gay marriage is justified because of "nose in the tent" issues, but only a tiny minority of Gay activists want to use that to force other issues.  I think they are nuts, and hurting the best interests of the overall Gay community by giving them a black eye via association.  I feel the same way when Gay Pride parade organizers allow participants to exhibit bizzar sexual attire and behavior during a parade that is suppose to make Gay people look just like everyone else.  There is nothing normal about half naked people wearing leather fetish gear.  If they wanted to scare the public, that is the best way to do it.
TexasLynn Added Aug 15, 2018 - 6:38pm
RB >> Thank  you for asking respectfully, its nice to see.
 
Whether we agree on an issue or not, I had legitimate questions.  Thank you for the answers.
 
I can definitely be riled, but I try to be respectful and civil.
 
RB >> I do realize that some of the objections to Gay marriage is justified because of "nose in the tent" issues, but only a tiny minority of Gay activists want to use that to force other issues.
 
Yes... BUT there is no doubt the camel's nose is growing... other issues are being forced.
 
I see what is happening with the LBGT agenda as the same thing that is happening with Islam.  (Forgive the comparison)  In both cases, it may be a tiny minority that want to force the issue (radical, violent Islam) but THOSE are the ones that are active and driving the issue while the majority are sitting on their hands.  The majority is inconsequential because they choose not to act.
 
And again, forgive the comparison... I have to think that a majority of German citizens in the late 30s early 40s would not have supported the NAZI world aggression or agenda against the Jews, BUT how consequential were they?  They weren't.  And what did that cost the world?
 
RB >> I feel the same way when Gay Pride parade organizers... (allowing exhibition and distort reality)
 
I can definitely see that.  It's probably the same cringing feeling I get when I see "Christians" holding up signs at funerals reading "God hates fags".
 
I guess the best we can do is not be part of the "silent" majority; especially when it comes to correcting the "sins" of our own associates.
 
Thanks for the post and reply...
Pardero Added Aug 15, 2018 - 7:13pm
Riley Brown,
'Marriage' goes back to the first humans and what Desmond Morris called the "pair-bond." It is likely that dowries were not far behind. Those pair-bonds, or marriages, were probably recognized by the families, clans, and tribes. Later, priests probably got involved, as deities sanctioned the marriages through their representatives.
 
Only because homosexuals have made a mockery of marriage, I have to reluctantly go along with Ward Tipton. The state does not belong in the marriage business. It should be returned to the families, clans, and tribes.
 
 As much as I am a supporter of monogamy and marriage, the modern ones are about as durable as a potato chip. Courts decide on parenting plans and (usually) punitive child support, whether married or not. Property seems to get divided up in court, whether married or not. 
 
What they did back in the Stone Age worked, and worked well, or we wouldn't be here discussing homosexual marriage. 
 
I recall some fantasy story by Stephen Donaldson. The boy and girl were married when each said, "Thee, thee, thee." Maybe that is the way it ought to be. Everybody equal under the law and the tax code. Maybe then every oddball and his brother won't be seeking marriage for financial gain.
 
I think Benjamin alluded to the fact that homosexuals will average a hundred times more sexual partners than heterosexuals.  He made a funny that he is all for them getting married to dampen that tendency. That a rare handful of homosexuals want to be monogamous, is not a good enough reason to destroy an institution that is God/Nature given. 
 
That being said, all people deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what their mental issues, especially pretty girls that masquerade as metrosexuals.
Pardero Added Aug 15, 2018 - 7:14pm
Jasmine,
Impressive comment!
Nicely done.
TexasLynn Added Aug 15, 2018 - 7:22pm
Jasmine & Pardero,
Impressive comments!
Nicely done.
Pardero Added Aug 15, 2018 - 8:21pm
Now that is high praise!
Thank you.
Riley Brown Added Aug 15, 2018 - 10:26pm
Pardero, how have the members of the homosexual community that want all the fiscal commitments that the state issued marriage certificate gives them, making a mockery of marriage?
 
I can see how anyone who has hundreds of sexual partners and no commitment to anyone might easily be considered to be much less socially responsible than people who don't sleep around, but the ones who want to commit to a partner for life, and are willing to sign on the dotted line, are not those types.
Riley Brown Added Aug 15, 2018 - 10:35pm
Jasmine, I think the people who have wanted to sanction marriages throughout history have always wanted to exert some sort of control over who can, and can't get married, and how they should behave once they are married.  Marriage has become a commodity that many people want, often despite the fact that no one needs anyone's permission to commit themselves to another person.
 
To me the state's marriage contract is much more of a business contract than a loving commitment between the participants.  I think it's a disgrace that it's got the same NAME as the religious marriage.  Religions are all about God and a commitment to a higher purpose, and both are totally absent in the state contract.  The term Civil Union is much more accurate and not nearly as insulting to religious people.
Jeff Jackson Added Aug 15, 2018 - 11:29pm
Jasmine,  a Mormon man can marry as many wives as he wants. Utah, at the time controlled mostly by Mormons, was forced to abolish polygamy in order to become a state of the United States. But there are some Mormons who aren't following the restriction that gave them statehood. Muslims, on the other hand, at least in Saudi Arabia, are restricted to four wives, and if you marry four women, whatever you give to one wife you must also give to the other wives. I did not mix up Mormons and Muslims, they are completely different religions.
Pardero Added Aug 16, 2018 - 2:14am
Riley Brown,
I don't have a real problem with Civil Unions, though it appears to be merely be a stepping stone, and a way to normalize aberrant behaviors. Jasmine's suggestion that "partnership" should cover any arrangement, is intriguing.
 
It is a normal function for societies to reward beneficial behaviors and show disapproval for detrimental behaviors. I am talking virtue and vice, not lawbreaking, per se. This function of society has worked for thousands of years, to promote what is healthy for a tribe, and discourage what is unhealthy for a tribe's prosperity.
This normal activity made for smooth running societies and built advanced civilizations. 
 
What we have here, is abnormally adjusted people, and sympathizers, legislating acceptance of something that should not be fully accepted and embraced as equal to normal behavior.  Proponents are satisfied with a bare plurality, when it should take a vast majority to adopt something that is antithetical to so many people's mores. That is mob rule.
 
It all strikes me as 'Me! me! me!'
You got an itch, get it scratched, no matter the consequences. We have middle-aged nut cases that decide they want to be a girl. Doesn't matter that they have children. At that point, why don't they just spare people, and save it for the afterlife to strut around in a negligee and be sweet talked by drunk slobs.
 
I remember, years ago, Dr. Laura lecturing a homosexual, that maybe they can't help their feelings, but they sure as heck could control their actions. Adult same-sex partners seem relatively benign, but the same selfish gratification goes into the thought processes of pedophiles and other degenerates. It is all about them, they are ruled by their twisted minds and their gonads.
 
Although most homosexuals were flipped by an older homosexual when they were teen-agers, I will stipulate that it is 'victimless' for the sake of argument. It is a detriment to families and societies, quaint anecdotes notwithstanding. Thankfully, I am 100% heterosexual. If I wasn't, I would control the defective feelings. If I didn't like women at all, I would be celibate. 
 
And it is all about the sex, or they would just be inseparable platonic friends.  We have become a society of lifelong children. Never accepting the responsibilities and hard choices of adulthood. No longer do we have a responsibility to family, society, or even our ancestors. Instead of protecting the young, the weak, or the aged, they are exploited. Sometimes, because it scratched somebody's itch.
 
Many of us are able to be tolerant of victimless aberrant behavior, but we resent the hell out of our blessing being legislated out of  us.
Cullen Kehoe Added Aug 16, 2018 - 3:35am
When everything is a right, it puts a stress on society trying accommodate everyone. You have the right to something that you need another person for...huh (a marriage)? How long before someone demands the government furnish them with a person they can marry? (Society isn't letting me exercise my 'right' to a marriage and free sex.)
 
You're already seeing some bizarre men's organizations Incels (involuntary celibates) who are dancing along this line...anger at women who aren't letting them exercise their perceived "rights". 
 
How long men before demand the 'right' to a natural born child (just like a woman can bring forth if she chooses)? 
 
Gay marriage (and abortion) could have gone to the legislatures to just take a vote and make legal. Instead by short-cutting that process and going to the courts and finding the 'right' to some behavior, it takes society in weirder directions. 
 
And it makes a mockery out of actual rights, outlined in the constitution like freedom of speech and freedom of religion. 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 16, 2018 - 8:33am
@Pardero:
It seems to me you don’t realize that homosexuality and lesbianism has existed for pretty much forever.  Ancient societies practiced it without shame and seem to function fine.
 
There is no proof that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia nor is there any link to your assertion that older homosexuals “flip” younger people into becoming gay.  Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things.  Pedophiles are attracted to children and for them the sex of the child is somewhat irrelevant, it is about the sexual gratification with a child.  I’ve read multiple studies of this, what I noted is the younger the victim the less relevant the sex of victim.  
 
It might do you some good to read some actual studies on this.  It also might help you to meet with someone who is gay so that you get over your abhorrence of them.  I have a friend who is gay, he and I work together.  What he told me was that he knew from a very early age that he was different, that he liked boys more than girls.  He definitely knew this by the time he hit puberty and no adult homosexual “flipped” him.  
 
We fear what what we don’t know, Pardero.  Maybe you should get over your fear.
Bill Kamps Added Aug 16, 2018 - 10:07am
Unless you meet the above-mentioned criteria, WHO THE FUCK are you to be writing about marriage?
 
Priests in the Catholic church comment on marriage all the time. 
Bill Kamps Added Aug 16, 2018 - 10:12am
Padero, a lot of what you say MIGHT be true if there were no financial attachments to marriage.  Marriage is a civil bond, with financial rights coming from that.  These include things like pensions, inheritance, insurance and so on.  Since the state has used marriage as a threshold for these financial rights and obligations, then to deny marriage to gay couples violates the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.  It doesnt matter if you consider this behavior abhorrent,  as many whites considered blacks marrying whites.
 
If marriage were strictly a religious bond, with no state financial rights attached to it, then religions could pick and choose who they allowed to be married, by sexual preference, skin tone, height. color of eyes or what have you.  But that is not what the situation is.
Janie Smith Added Aug 16, 2018 - 12:07pm
I agree Christianity needs to back off.  They don't own the concept of marriage.  Proud to be a resident of the state of WA where we fly the rainbow flag! 
Ryan Messano Added Aug 16, 2018 - 1:00pm
Ryan Messano Added Aug 16, 2018 - 1:00pm
Totally agree with Jasmine. 
Janie Smith Added Aug 16, 2018 - 1:18pm
Well, Ryan, that was a long time ago and there are a lot of things that we, as a species, used to think was ok that we don't anymore. Like sacrificing children or burning women as witches...
 
I mean, I know a lot of Christians that eat pork too...
Bill Kamps Added Aug 16, 2018 - 3:38pm
Janie, agreed.
The Mogget Added Aug 16, 2018 - 10:12pm
@Riley Brown
The Mogget, what part of the "story" have you found it difficult to document on the internet?  - Riley Brown
I have no problem finding things on the internet. I also have no trouble finding people who will spin their own alternate histories that are completely false. If you want me to take your version of history seriously, then you should give me a reason to trust it. If you don't want me to take your version of history seriously, why bother wasting all that space telling it to me? Just write the last paragraph and walk away.
 
I don't write books in forums because no one wants to read that much documentation, especially since they can look it up so easily themselves. 
Which makes me wonder why I even come to Writer's Beat. I can find unsupported opinions on twitter, and they waste less of my time. I hope that coming to places like this I will find people who care enough about their own ideas to defend them properly. Otherwise, this is just a really long-winded opinion. No one wants to read long winded opinions, since they can come up with one themselves.

Maybe I am the only one, but I do read the documentation and the cited sources.  People who have evidence are proud to show it, and I find that evidence is worth my time. 
EXPAT Added Aug 16, 2018 - 11:35pm
Jerk Kelly.
@Pardero:
It seems to me you don’t realize that homosexuality and lesbianism has existed for pretty much forever.  Ancient societies practiced it without shame and seem to function fine.
 
In classical antiquity, writers such as Herodotus,[1] Plato,[2] Xenophon,[3] Athenaeus[4] and many others explored aspects of homosexuality in ancient Greece. The most widespread and socially significant form of same-sex sexual relations in ancient Greece was between adult men and pubescent or adolescent boys, known as pederasty (marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their thirties commonly taking wives in their early teens).[5] Though sexual relationships between adult men did exist, at least one member of each of these relationships flouted social conventions by assuming a passive sexual role. It is unclear how such relations between women were regarded in the general society, but examples do exist as far back as the time of Sappho.[6]
The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[6] This active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
EXPAT Added Aug 16, 2018 - 11:48pm
Jerk Kelly.
There is no proof that homosexuality is linked to pedophilia nor is there any link to your assertion that older homosexuals “flip” younger people into becoming gay.  Pedophilia and homosexuality are two completely different things.  Pedophiles are attracted to children and for them the sex of the child is somewhat irrelevant, it is about the sexual gratification with a child.  I’ve read multiple studies of this, what I noted is the younger the victim the less relevant the sex of victim.  
 
rel="noopener">North American Man/Boy Love Association - Wikipediarel="noopener">Your browser indicates if you've visited this link
The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is a pedophile and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

rel="noopener">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

 


Homosexuality is explicitly linked to pedophilia.


 


Among the general class of male sexual deviants (both homosexual and heterosexual), pederasts (boy molesters) are found to be much more prolific in their offenses than pedophiles (girl molesters). The most extensive study performed on the relative degree of predatory behavior of these two classes of male sexual deviants found that 153 pederasts sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years, while 224 pedophiles molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years. This means that each pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each pedophile molested an average of 20 girls—a ratio of 7.5 to one.


 


>Source: Paul Cameron. “Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil.” Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, pages 1,227 to 1,236.____In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.


 


>Source: K. Freund & R.I. Watson. “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study.” 18 34, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 34-43 (1992).


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756


 


____


 


Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as "chicken hawks" — that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.


 


>Source: Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young. The Gay Report: Lesbians and Gay Men Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles [Simon and Schuster, 1979], page 275.




A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.


 


>Source: W.D. Erickson, et al. “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters.” 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 77, 83 (1988).


https://pastebin.com/ETuhB7wJ
 
There seems to be a problem with your research. I guess Huffy post isn't telling you the whole story!
EXPAT Added Aug 17, 2018 - 7:36am
I would not have been so harsh on Kelly, if he wasn't such a pompous ass!
 
It might do you some good to read some actual studies on this.  It also might help you to meet with someone who is gay so that you get over your abhorrence of them.  I have a friend who is gay, he and I work together.  What he told me was that he knew from a very early age that he was different, that he liked boys more than girls.  He definitely knew this by the time he hit puberty and no adult homosexual “flipped” him.  
 
We fear what what we don’t know, Pardero.  Maybe you should get over your fear.
 
Working with ONE gay person, doesn't make you an expert. And as I pointed out, he is a google head, with no research skills, but presents himself as an authority.
I AM THE RESIDENT POMPOUS ASS ON WB, AND WILL NOT TOLERATE COMPETITION!
 
Riley Brown Added Aug 17, 2018 - 9:54am
Mogget, no one wants to read a well documented thesis in these forums so I like almost everyone else won't be providing long lists of references or quotes to support the ideas we propose but if you ask about very specific assertions I've made, I'll be glad to give you an example.
 
Your request was so general that I'd have to write a small book to cover everything you might not have time to look up yourself.
Pardero Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:33am
Bill Kamps,
Jeffrey Kelly,
 
The Constitution seems to have left marriage to the States and the People. Should just be the People.
 
I am not a scholar, but Ward Tipton's idea, of gov out of marriage, combined with Jasmine's idea of partnerships, would have the state approving partnerships, and ceremonial marriages left to churches and others.
 
I am with Cullen Kehoe, activist judges have found yet more rights that the Founders didn't mention.
 
I, too, work with a homosexual, who is actually as good of an ambassador for that lifestyle as could be hoped for. We are on excellent terms. 
 
I am not a fan of the decadent ancient Greeks. Goes to show the depravity that occurs when you have an idle wealthy class that does not live by the sweat of their brow.
Bill Kamps Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:48am
Padero:  The Constitution seems to have left marriage to the States and the People. Should just be the People.
 
This would be correct, if the Federal and State governments did not use marriage as a threshold for financial benefits.
 
Once we have the Feds using marriage as a threshold for financial benefits, we invoke the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.  Gay  couples cant be denied these financial benefits simply because they are gay.  
 
Now we could say that governments should not have used marriage as a litmus test for benefits, but they did, so we have what we have.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 17, 2018 - 11:01am
If you allow government to be third party to one private transaction, they will expect to be allowed to be a third party to all private transactions. 
 
In Linneman v. Linneman, we see that “Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State.” (Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2D 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953) citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926) and further that, the State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. So the government can even decide what is important to you and your family under the Color of Law.
Bill Kamps Added Aug 17, 2018 - 11:25am
Ward, I agree.  People who claim that marriage is defined by religion, are missing this important point.  Marriage is a civil contract, with benefits and obligations attached to it, enforced by the state.  That it MIGHT also be a religious contract is not relevant to the civil contract.
 
While marriage is not defined by the Constitution, other matters relating to Federal decisions are defined by the Constitution.  The government cannot deny benefits, because someone is gay, black, tall, or blonde haired. 
Riley Brown Added Aug 17, 2018 - 5:03pm
The Federal Government only possesses the powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
 
Marriage is not discussed in the Constitution.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 17, 2018 - 7:30pm
@Expat:
Look, it’s google boy.  
 
 
I worked in child welfare for about five years.  I participated in multiple studies on pedophilia, took training sessions on the subject, interviewed children that suffered from sexual abuse and interviewed perpetrators.
 
As I mentioned above, I found nothing to indicate any of the google crap you dug up above.  Pedophiles are attracted to children because of the power they get over sexually manipulating children. The sex is often irrelevant to the perpetrator, it’s about age.  
 
Now, there is a link to the sexual preference to perps who prefer teenagers.  One guy I participated interviewing used to be a youth pastor at a local church.  He preferred teenage boys because that was his inclination but other perps I participated in interviewing preferred teenage girls because that was their inclination.
 
So, google away, google boy.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 17, 2018 - 7:34pm
@Pardero:
I don’t think we are that far off from agreeing.  I think as long as it is an option for those who want to get married it should be allowed.  Some churches allow it, others don’t.  In that case a legal partnership of some type is also a good option.
 
 
EXPAT Added Aug 17, 2018 - 9:45pm
I worked in child welfare for about five years.
ABOUT five years? You don't know how long?
 I participated in multiple studies on pedophilia, took training sessions on the subject, interviewed children that suffered from sexual abuse and interviewed perpetrators.
And you don't know about NAMBLA? Every thing that refutes your every delusion is well documented as to source and study.
NONE OF THE SOURCES ARE GOOGLE!
Pardon me if I do not believe your claims of expertise. You made the same type claims of expertise when you were playing HISTORIAN.
 
Now you are agreeing with Pardero, when you began by attacking him? You seem to be a harbor for all seasons!
EXPAT Added Aug 17, 2018 - 9:49pm
I am finished responding to your dementia! What's next, Military expert or ex CIA?
Pardero Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:00pm
Jeffrey Kelly,
I agree. I think you and I, and likeminded people, could come to a consensus. Though unlikely, I would like to see a legal partnership, and a separate, purely ceremonial, marriage, which would actually hearken back to olden days marriages. 
 
 
Prudent couples would avail themselves of both. Inclusive and fair, without grossly offending anyone's values.
Pardero Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:25pm
Jeffrey Kelly,
Ward Tipton and Bill Kamps have ably and authoritatively described an overlap between church and state. Perhaps they need to be separated, on this thorny issue. 
 
Let Caesar have what is his, but nothing more. Allow people of tradition and faith to retain what is theirs.
 
Some institutions and words hold great power and reverence to people. I believe that it is unwise to tinker with them, and twist their meaning. Once someone gets their hackles up, they can be hard to reason with.
 
We have a whole lot of people that are in a near permanent state of having their hackles up, on both sides. Some people believe that their faith, culture, values, and institutions are under attack, and I can't blame them.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:31pm
@EXPAT:
”I worked in child welfare for about five years.
ABOUT five years? You don't know how long?”
 
2003-2008....about five years.

 “I participated in multiple studies on pedophilia, took training sessions on the subject, interviewed children that suffered from sexual abuse and interviewed perpetrators.
And you don't know about NAMBLA?”
 
A fringe group of sickos.....yes, I know who they are.  
 
“Every thing that refutes your every delusion is well documented as to source and study.
NONE OF THE SOURCES ARE GOOGLE!”
 
Gee, Thai boy, you really have your knickers in a bunch.  Did you run out of money to pay for your little....”companions?”
Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.  
 
“Pardon me if I do not believe your claims of expertise. You made the same type claims of expertise when you were playing HISTORIAN.”
 
I work for the Department of Human Services.  History is a hobby.  Are you still carrying a grudge because I whooped your ass in history, google boy?  Seems to me you got so upset you actually deleted one of my comments.  I never delete comments, to me that’s the mark of a whiny bitch poodle.  
 

 
“Now you are agreeing with Pardero, when you began by attacking him? You seem to be a harbor for all seasons!”
 
Actually I read Pardero’s next comment and that is what I agreed with.  Unlike you, bitch poodle, I take the time to read.  
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:34pm
@Pardero:
I believe in a strict separation between church and state.  
 
I go back to what I said before, let people marry in churches that allow this while giving people a legal option if their church won’t have them.  Or if they don’t belong to a church.
Ryan Messano Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:51pm
 
Janie, that may be so, but the Bible never authorized that.  Simply saying someone said they were a Christian and did that doesn't mean they were.
 
Liberty is impossible without confining sex to heterosexual marriage. Virtue means no sex whatsoever outside of marriage and that includes Onanism.
 
Also, let's not forget the Catholic Church was invaded by homosexuals.  Notice it was mostly boys that were raped, not girls, by those pedophile priests. 
Ryan Messano Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:52pm
Jeffrey Kelly Added Aug 17, 2018 - 10:56pm
And?
Bill Kamps Added Aug 18, 2018 - 9:04am
Padero:  Let Caesar have what is his, but nothing more. Allow people of tradition and faith to retain what is theirs.
 
In some ways this is solved, and in other ways this is unsolvable.
 
Any church can choose the rules for how a couple could be married in their church.  One can also be married in a civil ceremony, and the church has the right to not acknowledge this marriage.
 
What Christians are saying, is that they only want marriages to exist, that abide by their rules.  Effectively stopping civil ceremonies. Effectively applying their rules to non-Christians. 
 
However, what about other religions?  what if their rules are different, whose rules should be followed to determine what is a marriage?
 
But it is more complicated than that.  Because I know of gay people that are openly accepted in a Christian church here in my city.  So SOME Christian churches accept gay people, while most do not.
 
People just need to chill, and stop worrying about what others are doing.  If gay people want to live together and love each other, why should others stop them? 
 
 
Pardero Added Aug 18, 2018 - 10:20am
Bill Kamps 
I don't want to stop them from being together. 
I do not want states or activist judges giving approval to something that the people do not approve of.
The states should take a neutral position that fulfills all the necessary legal requirements, without redefining an ancient institution. 
I am fine with churches or individuals 'marrying' anyone they choose.
Bill Kamps Added Aug 18, 2018 - 10:34am
Padero: I do not want states or activist judges giving approval to something that the people do not approve of.
 
Only SOME people dont approve of gay marriage.  Easily more than half the people in the US approve of gay marriage. 
 
I would agree that the judicial solution was kind of a back door solution.  However, it is the same process that was used to uphold civil rights, namely the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.  We cant have laws that apply differently to one group, than to another.  When the state attached financial benefits to marriage, Im sure the last thing they expected was that this would lead to gay marriage, but here we are. 
 
You really didnt state a solution.  It seems you want to reserve marriage to a religious ceremony, but religions are different, so whose rules do we follow?  As I stated, even the Christians differ on what kind of couple can be accepted into the church. 
 
Civil ceremonies have been around since the 1850s.  
 
It is not a perfect world, and I think the ship has sailed on this matter.  Untangling the state from marriage, and making a religious only ceremony, seems like a pretty steep hill to climb at this point.
Pardero Added Aug 19, 2018 - 12:10am
Bill Kamps,
You are right, of course.
I wish that it had been done a little bit differently.
I would like to think that I am moderate on this issue, since I know people that are troubled far more than I am.
 
It could be, that the Romans had similar conversations around the year 400 or so. 
 
Many people think of the Romans as decadent and corrupt, but no more noble people ever lived, than during the Roman Republic. Perhaps historians will say the same thing about a youthful America, someday.
Ward Tipton Added Aug 19, 2018 - 1:26am
So on the one hand, marriage is nothing more than a private contract between two people ... where does the government gain access as a lawful third party? (Note: Lawful, not necessarily just Legal)
 
On the other hand, marriage is a religious event regarding the commitment of two people before their God. 
 
I do not see in either case how the State has any choice but to recognize the marriage. Though again, there is that whole civil matter in regards to the legal fiction. Amazing how it is constantly coming back around to bite us. 
Ward Tipton Added Aug 19, 2018 - 1:28am
Noble Americans? Maybe in the 1600s? 
Riley Brown Added Sep 10, 2018 - 11:19pm
Ward, I don't see any reason for the State to be involved in marriages.  In this country they are a religious concept that varies tremendously depending on which religion is involved.
 
The state offers a contract that has nothing to do with God unless perhaps you want to call money the state God.