PDA

View Full Version : Between a Man and a Woman



Germanicus
01-25-2014, 01:13 AM
The biggest argument against gay marriage is how people bring up the church and claim that marriage is some sacred thing between a man and a woman. And then you think about how god hates gay people and all that stuff.

Well. Our idea of marriage comes from Romans. Before the church. Roman law did not recognise marriage between a man and a man but the fact that Rome gave us our idea of marriage means that all the religous stuff about marriage being between a man and woman should be ignored. The church did not invent marriage. These anti-gay marriage people should have to say that marriage is between a man and a woman because Romans said so.

And its not like the Romans didnt have weddings between men and men. Nero had two that he was the groom in. And maybe one where he was the bride.

So is Nero the first gay guy to have a wedding?

The Romans had no problem with gay people. They liked them almost as much as the Greeks really.


Under Christian rule

Attitudes toward same-sex behavior changed as Christianity became more prominent in the Empire. The modern perception of Roman sexual decadence can be traced to early Christian polemic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_polemic).[192] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-192) Apart from measures to protect the liberty of citizens, the prosecution of homosexual acts as a general crime began in the 3rd century of the Christian era when male prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_prostitution) was banned by Philip the Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Arab). A series of laws regulating homosexual acts were promulgated during the social crisis of the 3rd century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Third_Century), from the statutory rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape) of minors to gay marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_marriage).[193] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-193)
By the end of the 4th century, passive homosexual acts under the Christian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great_and_Christianity) were punishable by burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning).[194] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-194) "Death by sword" was the punishment for a "man coupling like a woman" under the Theodosian Code (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosian_Code).[195] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-195) It can be argued, however, that legislation under Christian rule was an extension of traditional Roman views on appropriate gender roles, and not an abrupt shift based on Christian theology. It is in the 6th century, under Justinian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian), that legal and moral discourse on homosexuality becomes distinctly Christian:[196] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-196) all same-sex acts, passive or active, no matter who the partners, were declared contrary to nature and punishable by death.[197] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#cite_note-197) Homosexual behaviors were pointed to as causes for God's wrath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_retribution) following a series of disasters around 542 and 559
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Everyone cries for the witches but what about the homosexuals?

Plus the west is not the entire world and much of the world has been even more progressive than the Greeks and Romans.


Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-8)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-Homosexuality.2C_Erik_Holland_page_334-9)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-Homosexuality.2C_Erik_Holland_page_334-9) The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law) the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-10)

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujian), through the Ming dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ming_dynasty) period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-Neill-11) Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions#cite_note-12)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

It is the church that has encouraged hate against gays. Christian relgion. Before christians people were not so hysterical about people being gay for the most part.

Anyway, the church should be taken out of the gay marriage debate right? They did not invent marriage and they also do not own the world. And that is for sure.

What do you think?

5560

5561

And hey. Nero first gay marriage. Was Elagabalus the first transexual western leader? The first drag queen type? He had a gay wedding too. And he really wanted his own vagina too.


The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#cite_note-autogenerated1-40) Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, epilate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plucking_(hair_removal)) his hair and wear wigs before prostituting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution) himself in taverns, brothels,[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus#cite_note-41) and even in the imperial palace:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

5562

PostScript- Did Nero and Elagabalus have vagina envy? (: Is that a thing?

PostpostScript- hey it is a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb_and_vagina_envy
(:
And we know what Nero did to his mothers womb.


In Feminist psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_psychology) the terms womb envy and vagina envy denote the unexpressed anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety) that some men feel in natural envy of the biological functions of women (pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy), parturition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parturition), breast feeding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_feeding)) — emotions which impel their social (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_role) subordination of women, and to drive themselves to succeed in perpetuating their names via material legacies.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womb_and_vagina_envy#cite_note-Horney_1967-1) Each term is analogous to the concept of female penis envy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penis_envy), derived from the theory of psychosexual development (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosexual_development), presented in Freudian psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_psychology); they address the gender role (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_role) social dynamics underlying the “envy and fascination with the female breasts and lactation, with pregnancy and childbearing, and vagina envy [that] are clues to a femininity complex of men, which is defended against by psychological and sociocultural means”

That is very feminist thinking. Who wants to be able to grow a baby inside their belly? No thanks. But I wouldnt mind experiencing a female orgasm. (: Like sometimes gilrs look like they are having an epileptic fit when they have an orgasm you know. Im sure sex is better for females somehow. That is the only reason I would envy a female. For the sensative genitals. And the orgasms.

Vagina envy. You learn something new every day they say.

Germanicus
01-25-2014, 02:19 AM
The assassins closed in round her couch, and the captain of the trireme first struck her head violently with a club. Then, as the centurion bared his sword for the fatal deed, presenting her person, she exclaimed, "Smite my womb," and with many wounds she was slain. So far our accounts agree. That Nero gazed on his mother after her death and praised her beauty, some have related, while others deny it. Her body was burnt that same night on a dining couch, with a mean funeral; nor, as long as Nero was in power, was the earth raised into a mound, or even decently closed. Subsequently, she received from the solicitude of her domestics, a humble sepulcher on the road to Misenum, near the country house of Caesar the Dictator, which from a great height commands a view of the bay beneath.
http://www.bible-history.com/nero/NEROTacitus_on_the_Emperor_Nero.htm

zelmo1234
01-25-2014, 05:46 AM
First you like all left wing nut jobs have made 2 mistakes,

#1 The Old testament Bible outdates the Roman and Greek empires. So The facts that you started with are wrong. That usually does not stop liberals as there opinion usually overrides anything that would be based in facts

#2 The Church calls homosexuality a sin, OH! Yes we have some Waco's like those that protest the troops saying that the gays are causing it, but they are scorned by the Church in general.

The sin of homosexuality is like all other sin, the Bible says that if you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all in Gods eyes. So it is no better or worse that any other sin! But it is still sin.

And most Christians do not want homosexual couples to have any less rights, they support civil unions overwhelmingly, But thought that the word marriage should be left for the joining of a man and a women!

I for example believe that all marriages should be recognized by a civil/ legal union at the state level. this union should have the terms of divorce set at the time of marriage. And marriage ceremonies would then be preformed in churches. Leaving the government totally out of the marriage debate, one in which they do not belong.

This would create a situation of legal equality for all, and some churches would preform gay marriage and some would not, but in the eyes of the law everyone would be the same!

most liberals will hate this idea because it returns the power to the people !

kilgram
01-25-2014, 06:01 AM
What I don't get is how you talk about leaving out the government, when you are talking to involve government in the marriage:

I for example believe that all marriages should be recognized by a civil/ legal union at the state level. this union should have the terms of divorce set at the time of marriage.


You are asking that government (state) regulate and recognize all marriages. And later you are saying that marriage ceremony would then be performed in churches. Well, you are exactly defending what gays defend. I don't see how you cannot see it. They want to marry (civil way) and have the same rights. You are exactly saying the same!!!! The only difference (and really small and I think that it is already done) it is that should be done in state level.

Don't each state has different laws regarding marriage?

zelmo1234
01-25-2014, 06:48 AM
What I don't get is how you talk about leaving out the government, when you are talking to involve government in the marriage:

I for example believe that all marriages should be recognized by a civil/ legal union at the state level. this union should have the terms of divorce set at the time of marriage.


You are asking that government (state) regulate and recognize all marriages. And later you are saying that marriage ceremony would then be performed in churches. Well, you are exactly defending what gays defend. I don't see how you cannot see it. They want to marry (civil way) and have the same rights. You are exactly saying the same!!!! The only difference (and really small and I think that it is already done) it is that should be done in state level.

Don't each state has different laws regarding marriage?

I guess that really was confusing, Sorry had not had my coffee when I wrote that.

I will try and put it this way.

In the eyes of the government I think that every Union (marriage if you will) Should be called a civil union! I believe that the terms of the divorce should be set by people that love each other, not hate each other. And this would save the government a lot of money! in courts ect!

So legally in the eyes of the state for benefits provided by the state, everything is called a civil union! Just think of the money if you added something like joint wills to the process, even more court savings.

As for the Word "Marriage" now that would be a totally religious ceremony! For those that believe in God it would be important, for those that don't they would have there civil union and all the rights of what we call marriage today. It would also free the churches to either marry or not may gay folks!

How could it be any more fair than that!

midcan5
01-25-2014, 07:18 AM
Given many examples of heterosexual marriage in our society, it would make sense if we banned hetero-marriage as it doesn't last, it hurts lots of children, it often causes abusive behavior, and all it does is jam up our legal system with divorce, custody battles, and restraining orders. Consider the amount of money saved, judges would then be free to help corporations rip off more Americans than they do now. Wake up people ban heterosexual marriage, it doesn't work most of the time anyway. Makes sense doesn't it.


And another question is was anyone born heterosexual? And if so, what made them heterosexual? If it is learning then we can learn anything. If it is genes then could genes be different in some. So in the end you face a quandary. So do something I suggest often, switch hit, and see how cute his/her butt is and if that holding hands and hugging her/him is your style. Just pretend you are one of those sinners for a day or so, who knows what you may find out about yourself.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner

"Despite how straightforward and commonplace it may appear today, the heterosexual/homosexual juxtaposition was actually less to the fore in premodern times and, in effect, was not universally observed. Equally, heterosexual love-however natural it may appear today-was seen in those earlier societies not so much as a rejection of homosexuality but rather as an alternative to nonsexual male-to-male relationships and, for that matter, the love of God advocated respectively by chivalric and religious practices and codes of conduct... There is today a clear need to rethink our attitude to heterosexuality...." 'The Invention of Heterosexual Culture' Louis-Georges Tin

zelmo1234
01-25-2014, 07:39 AM
^^^^^^^Waste of Air ^^^^^^^

Germanicus
01-25-2014, 10:30 AM
#1 The Old testament Bible outdates the Roman and Greek empires. So The facts that you started with are wrong.

We, westerners, get our idea od marriage from Romans, before they wrote the new testament.. (:

And I am always right. I know everything.

Dr. Who
01-25-2014, 11:53 AM
First you like all left wing nut jobs have made 2 mistakes,

#1 The Old testament Bible outdates the Roman and Greek empires. So The facts that you started with are wrong. That usually does not stop liberals as there opinion usually overrides anything that would be based in facts

#2 The Church calls homosexuality a sin, OH! Yes we have some Waco's like those that protest the troops saying that the gays are causing it, but they are scorned by the Church in general.

The sin of homosexuality is like all other sin, the Bible says that if you are guilty of one sin you are guilty of them all in Gods eyes. So it is no better or worse that any other sin! But it is still sin.

And most Christians do not want homosexual couples to have any less rights, they support civil unions overwhelmingly, But thought that the word marriage should be left for the joining of a man and a women!

I for example believe that all marriages should be recognized by a civil/ legal union at the state level. this union should have the terms of divorce set at the time of marriage. And marriage ceremonies would then be preformed in churches. Leaving the government totally out of the marriage debate, one in which they do not belong.

This would create a situation of legal equality for all, and some churches would preform gay marriage and some would not, but in the eyes of the law everyone would be the same!

most liberals will hate this idea because it returns the power to the people !

Actually that is the law in France:
French law only recognises civil marriage. This must be performed by a French Civil Authority (officier de l'état civil), which includes the mayor (maire), their legally authorised replacement - the deputy mayor (adjoint) - or a city councillor (conseiller municipal).
Religious ceremonies are optional, have no legal status and may only be held after the civil ceremony has taken place (which can, but need not be, on the same day.) http://brittany.angloinfo.com/information/family/marriage-partnerships/