Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prove that is was illegal before Constantine wrote a law to make it illegal.
Why don't you prove it was is legal in Minnesota before they adopted the law de-legalizing same-sex marriage in 1974? LOL
Delegalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota in 1974 does not mean it was legal there before, the same way Constantine's Law does not prove same-sex marriage was legal in Rome. We don't have any records of same-sex marriages performed there. How come?
For Romans marriage was "matrimonium", in English it is "matrimony". Comes from Latin "mater" = "mother", as husband was supposed to make a women he wed, a mother, to have children with her. How do you put same sex marriage in this context? LOL
Would'nt all depend on the indivduals who are raising the children rather gay or straight? Can someone please explain to me why a gayman whould molest a little girl? Oh thats right he has no interest in girl parts but a straight man would. Statiscally there are more straight pedophiles than there are gay ones, so what is the point again?
For those who think that a child living in a gay household is immoral, what about the father/mother who cheats on their mate? Is'nt that in the same category as having a "immoral lifestyle?" Does'nt that include the swingers and the polygomist?
My personal opinion is a heterosexual household is good, but a loving household regardless of sexual oreintation is ideal.
Why don't you prove it was is legal in Minnesota before they adopted the law de-legalizing same-sex marriage in 1974? LOL
Delegalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota in 1974 does not mean it was legal there before, the same way Constantine's Law does not prove same-sex marriage was legal in Rome. We don't have any records of same-sex marriages performed there. How come?
For Romans marriage was "matrimonium", in English it is "matrimony". Comes from Latin "mater" = "mother", as husband was supposed to make a women he wed, a mother, to have children with her. How do you put same sex marriage in this context? LOL
I cited the sources earlier in this thread (for 57), where we went on for pages about how the author was bias and it was from a book that was highly controversial (to the Catholic church), .
LOL. Not just the catholic church but the entire scientific community, to all historians.
Everybody can write a book and draw his own not matter how far-fetched conclusions, proving them is a different story. Boswell never did.
Boswell was a quack, gay and deeply Roman Catholic he tried to find a way to bridge his faith and sexual orientation.
As every scientist with an agenda he end up in obscurity. No historians take his fables of gay marriage in early Catholic church seriously.
If it wasn't illegal, then it was legal. There are two options.
Wow. What a logic. Following your concept: same sex marriages, prior to 1974 anti same-sex marriage law, were completely legal in Minnesota. Maybe. It still does not change the fact there were not any
Because the US of A by the language spoken here and its history is part of the Western Civilization and not Islam or Orient?
The only problem with your western civilization argument is that the USA schanged western civilization and because of our separation form great Britian we began the decline of western civilization. We opened the door to adapting other cultures into our own. Now most progressive countries adapt other cultures into their own. The majority of historians agree that western civilization is on it's way out as the world as a whole begins to mix cultures. The only people that want to grasp and hold tight to the concepts of the old western civilizations are Conservatives. This isn't done to protect tradition, it's because they fear change. ,
Quote:
Why is it so surprising? If we were part of any other civilization we would not have this conversation in the first place. You would like to be gay in a Muslim country?
Did you know that before the Crusades the Muslim world was one of the leaders in scientific and medical advances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I don't think marriage predates religions... Religions are as old as our civilization and one could argue that before religion we had unions but only religions made these union "marriages", i.e. give these common unions some some bigger meaning, moral and social sanction.
Ah, but the concept of two people coming together to form lifelong bonds(marriage) does predate modern religion.
Quote:
My point is that you make no sense, there is no tradition of same-sex marriage in any of major world culture that survived to this day! Coincidence?
No, there isn't. Why? Because the Christian movement changed everything... and I do mean everything. They set us back a thousand years in scientific advancement, practicing any form of science or study that was not granted by the church was punishable by death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinArmageddons
History actually proves that one wrong.
It does, but he won't admit that. You would think if someone was a historian they would be unbiased and want accurate history. Sadly, we allow religious schools to teach their form of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
I am scared to ask what history it is and where they teach that
Just go to any non-religious school that has distinguished history program.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebel12
LOL. Not just the catholic church but the entire scientific community, to all historians.
Everybody can write a book and draw his own not matter how far-fetched conclusions, proving them is a different story. Boswell never did.
I just bought Boswell's book. I will let you know how much proof he provides. Just skimming it, he cites more than 40 sources in the first few chapters.
Quote:
Boswell was a quack, gay and deeply Roman Catholic he tried to find a way to bridge his faith and sexual orientation.
As every scientist with an agenda he end up in obscurity. No historians take his fables of gay marriage in early Catholic church seriously.
A quack? He was one of the leading historians on the middle ages. No credible historian that I can find would call him a quack, and they most certainly do take his work seriously.
Oh, and you know how you keep saying that there are no recorded same-sex marriages aside from the rulers of the time? That is because mostly noble wedding were recorded. There was no reason to record non-noble weddings.
Last edited by raison_d'etre; 08-03-2012 at 05:03 PM..
The leader of a country is gay, and he weds his male partner - then they have two children through IVF and a surrogate.
How seriously do you think they would then be taken?
not very!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
