Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[Brooklyn]

Like I mentioned to you in another post, people usually leave off the qualifiers when they mean “some” or “many”. I think that is the sense that Brooklyn meant. It wasn’t “all liberals,” but instead “some liberals” or “many liberals”.

The liberals I was talking about are those who believe, for the first time in history, that marriage can be any relationship other than just between a man and a woman. Those are the people who look down their noses at all mankind who lived before them and did not believe that. I know not all liberal thinkers believe in same sex marriage, and of course I was not including them in my comments.

 

[exoflare]

Thanks for the slander, Brooklyn. There are no exceptions for you, eh? It’s unfortunate, but uncharitable attitudes like yours are one reason I tend to reject conservative positions even when I think they might be good ones.

If you consider general truths to be “slander” and the only defense you can come up with is splitting hairs over the possibility of exceptions to the rule, then the problem doesn’t lie with the truth. You have no one to blame but yourself when you allow fleeting emotions to override your conscience, so don’t be disappointed that people won’t show up at your pity party when you cry about rejecting positions that otherwise make sense to you just to spite people.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well, gosh. I am not sure how to do that. Since a “non-marriage” wasn’t recorded, it would be hard to find records of it.

What I said previously is commonly accepted, however. Here is one website:

exploregenealogy.co.uk/FindingEarlyMarriageRecords.html

Your quote doesn’t work. You originally said 150 to 200 years ago. Your quote is talking about 1538.

Nice try. Still doesn’t work. I still say you pulled that one right out of thin air. And as you say, you can’t back it up.

 

[Brooklyn]

You are right that some posts are like that, but Brooklyn’s is quite unequivocal.

Please explain yourself. I am going by the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic Church, and since you label yourself as Catholic, I assume you do the same.

 

[irishpatrick]

The lines are drawn quite clearly. The Catechism makes the Church’s position absolutely clear:

---

*2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

They are contrary to the natural law.

They close the sexual act to the gift of life.

They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Under no circumstances can they be approved.*

---

The lines are drawn and a 1973 ruling does not change TRUTH!

No faithful Catholic can support homosexual acts without standing firmly against their own faith and Church. Think about that long and hard and decide if you want to choose for or against Christ!

 

[exoflare]

The simple sad fact is there was no systematic recording of marriages in England and Wales before 1538

Yeah that seems like about 200 years ago.

 

[Dale_M]

It comes down to whether you believe homosexuality is wrong, as specified in the Bible and by the Catholic Church.

Certainly the Catholic Church says that, and I have no objection to it. But the Bible says all kinds of horrible things, such as the victim of a rapist should be forced to marry him.

Deut 22:28-29

Since this is a Catholic forum, I am more than willing to go with Catholic teaching. But if you want to quote stray Bible quotes, I think you will run into trouble. Its the guidance of the Holy Spirit which gives the Catholic Church its ability to interpret the Bible accurately.

You don’t believe in the sanctity and sacredness of marriage.

Oh, but I do. I am not sure what I have said to make you decide otherwise

 

[Dale_M]

Yeah that seems like about 200 years ago.

Your quote doesn’t work. You originally said 150 to 200 years ago. Your quote is talking about 1538.

Well fine. - but I think you are picking at nits. Would you care to document the marriage, or non-marriages, which occurred between 1600 and 1800? Do you really think it makes a difference? My point is that marriage today is not the marriage which occurred earlier in history, despite the claim of apologists.

 

[scipio337]

Well, gosh. I am not sure how to do that. Since a “non-marriage” wasn’t recorded, it would be hard to find records of it.

What I said previously is commonly accepted, however. Here is one website:

exploregenealogy.co.uk/FindingEarlyMarriageRecords.html

Hey, look: Here is another one listed as a “reference” on the same Wikipage you used:

Another notable historical fact is the nearly universal stress on the necessity of marriage and the resulting pressure on single persons to get married. This pressure was partially lifted only under the influence of Christianity which, at least for some time, found a special virtue in celibacy. Christian doctrines have, of course, also had their effects on marriage itself, and some of these will be discussed below.

emphasis mine. From “History of Marriage in Western Civilization”.

www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

My link is #22, yours is #34.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-magnusHirschfeldSexology-21

 

[Brooklyn]

Certainly the Catholic Church says that, and I have no objection to it. But the Bible says all kinds of horrible things, such as the victim of a rapist should be forced to marry him.

Deut 22:28-29

Oh, but I do. I am not sure what I have said to make you decide otherwise

Ok, so you pick and choose with the Bible. Not much I can say to that since you feel free to reject anything that you don’t like.

And no, you don’t believe in the sacredness of marriage because you are willing to let it be destroyed. Marriage has been perfect for the entire history of mankind. The people in it are imperfect, but the institutution itself is perfect. Whenever marriage has broken down, societies have broken down. By allowing marriage to be redefined, you are destroying it. I don’t believe that when you want something destroyed that you believe in its sanctity.

 

[Brooklyn]

Well fine. Would you care to document the marriage, or non-marriages which occurred between 1800 and 1600? My point is that marriage today is not the marriage which occurred earlier in history, despite the claim of apologists.

Again, what are you talking about?

 

[Corki]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brooklyn
Ok - give me some hard facts to back up your assertion that very few people in Western Civilization got married 150 to 200 years ago.

Well, gosh. I am not sure how to do that. Since a “non-marriage” wasn’t recorded, it would be hard to find records of it.

What I said previously is commonly accepted, however. Here is one website:

Quote:
The simple sad fact is there was no systematic recording of marriages in England and Wales before 1538, which makes a genealogy search problematic. Prior to this, in fact, there was actually often no clerical involvement in the weddings of ordinary people - they were either married in a “handfast” ceremony at home, or outside the church door. Where the clergy was involved, it was usually to wed people of substance. What this means, of course, is that the majority of weddings were never recorded for posterity, as the view of witnesses were perfectly adequate to last a lifetime in small communities. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of the population was unable to read or write, and there seemed to be no need in what was essentially still an oral culture. That was fine for them, but no help when assembling a family tree.

exploregenealogy.co.uk/Fi…geRecords.html

“Commonly accepted” that pre-1538 is the same as 150 to 200 years ago?

Since the Church teaches that the Sacrament of Marriage is conveyed by the bride and groom and not the priest (Western), the involvement of the priest is a matter of discipline and has no bearing on whether a marriage was entered into. The recording of marriages into public records is not evidence against the existance of marriages.

As for records, I have geneology records for my own family going back more than 200 years that include records of marriages. None were wealthy (immigrant farmers), half were Catholic - half Protestant, but there were plenty of marriages.

Regardless, this discussion is about US law so any practice in pre-1538 England and Wales is not relevant. US Constitutional law only goes back to 1787.

 

[edwest2]

What a strange statement.

The African American experience in the US has nothing to do with sex. No one has said that, other than you.

However, “common sense knowledge” of 150 years ago held that blacks could not achieve equality with whites. Similarly, “common sense knowledge” today (certainly in this thread) holds that gay men and women can not marry with equality.

If you object to the use of African-Americans, substitute “Chinese” or “Irish” or “Czech” or whatever oppressed group you prefer.

It has been mentioned often by gay rights advocates that even though now they can engage in whatever sexual relationships they want, unless they are given marriage, they are being discriminated against like black people were?

“gay men and women cannot marry with equality” With all due respect, equality with what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[irishpatrick]

Question to those who support the judge’s ruling:

How will you feel if one day the Catholic Church was forced to go underground?

 

[Corki]

Hey, look: Here is another one listed as a “reference” on the same Wikipage you used:

emphasis mine. From “History of Marriage in Western Civilization”.

www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html

My link is #22, yours is #34.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#cite_note-magnusHirschfeldSexology-21

Good catch!

 

[exoflare]

Well fine. Would you care to document the marriage, or non-marriages which occurred between 1800 and 1600?

haha that doesn’t even have anything to do with your claim… do you think people on here can’t view posts from like, an hour ago, or what? I don’t see how else you think you could get away with forgetting your own argument like this.

 

[edwest2]

That has nothing to do with this discussion. The point is that majority culture often forms harsh, and unjustified opinions regarding minority populations.

“minority populations”? Can you be more specific? This thread is about a single issue.

All gay advocates have to do today is convince a handful of powerful people to rule in their favor. That does not make it right.

For 40 years, all I heard regarding “alternative lifestyles” was: “Leave us alone! Mind your own business!”

Today, all I’m hearing from gay advocates is: This is going to happen wheteher you like it or not! And since they could not get the people to agree, they will use the only tool at their disposal: judges.

But that won’t be enough. The Polys are standing next in line for their “rights.” To be followed by any mix and match “marriage” combination you can think of.

God bless,
Ed

 

[scipio337]

Good catch!

I wasn’t trying to be snide, I just found conflicting information from the same page.

 

[CatholicGerman]

You forgot a step, which we haven’t quite reached yet:

Polygamy

Oh, yeah. Polygamy will be great for the public coffers. All of those marriage licenses! Imagine the intake for local catering businesses and flower shops! Who else can we get to pay the state protection money? What about pet marriages? Pets would be forbidden to marry until they cough up the cash and get a -]receipt/-] license. It would be all the rage. The trend would sweep the globe.

You guys do realize that this is all a money-making racket, right? Marriage is a natural institution. We don’t need the state to grant us “permission” to marry, as if they were passing out treats to dogs. Aww… we like you. Here’s a marriage license so that you can do what you were going to do anyway. Good boy. Now where’s the money?

That the Catholic Church goes along with this insanity is something that truly grates. Since when do we need government permission to practice the sacraments? What are they going to do if we get married without paying their protection money first? Jail the priest that conducted the ceremony?

Yup. That’s probably what they’ll do once the Church finally gets a backbone and stops participating in this shameless scam. Civil disobedience! March those priests off to jail! We never liked them anyway. They’re all pedophiles, you know. And they’re a bunch of sexists, too!

 

[irishpatrick]

Oh, yeah. Polygamy will be great for the public coffers. All of those marriage licenses! Imagine the intake for local catering businesses and flower shops! Who else can we get to pay the state protection money? What about pet marriages? Pets would be forbidden to marry until they cough up the cash and get a -]receipt/-] license. It would be all the rage. The trend would sweep the globe.

You guys do realize that this is all a money-making racket, right? Marriage is a natural institution. We don’t need the state to grant us “permission” to marry, as if they were passing out treats to dogs. Aww… we like you. Here’s a marriage license so that you can do what you were going to do anyway. Good boy. Now where’s the money?

That the Catholic Church goes along with this insanity is something that truly grates. Since when do we need government permission to practice the sacraments? What are they going to do if we get married without paying their protection money first? Jail the priest that conducted the ceremony?

Yup. That’s probably what they’ll do once the Church finally gets a backbone and stops participating in this shameless scam. Civil disobedience! March those priests off to jail! We never liked them anyway. They’re all pedophiles, you know. And they’re a bunch of sexists, too!

The Church will comply or have to shut its doors.