The Battle Over the Definition of Marriage - Timeline

[Maso]

That statement is false according to the reflexive property of equality. shaw:

RIGHT…!!!

Congratulations…!!!

 

[Honorius]

1). Sodam
2). Gamoreh
3). Anchient Greece
4). Roman Empire
5). Byzantine Empire
6). France under Louis XIV

Here we go again…!

1. Right, but I do not think we have to worry about having fire and brimstone rained down upon us from the heavens.
2. See the above.
3. Perhaps you could clarify here. There were many states in ancient Greece.
4. By the end of the Roman Empire, pretty much everyone was a Christian (thanks to Theodosius I, who decreed Christianity the state religion), therefore implying that many followed Christian morality in the aspect of marriage at least. Also, the Theodosian Code, which came into effect in 438, punished those guilty of homosexual acts with being burned alive.
5. The code of Justinian, coming into effect between 539 to 544, also condemned homosexual activity with death. (If you want to read the law, this website has it:droitromain.upmf-grenoble.fr/. On the left go to the link saying anglica, and scroll to the bottom of the page. You should see it pretty quickly.) Byzantium was also a Christian empire, implying Christian morals and values.
6. As of now, I am not able to answer this without doing a little research, but the first five should give you enough to reply to.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So-called “gay marriage” won’t last as long as the progressives think, and if it’s so popular, why do they need the courts to shove it down everyone’s throat?

For the same reason blacks and whites needed Loving v. Virginia. In fact, this is a reflection of events leading up to that decision; complete with States slowly toppling the old tired prejudices like dominos and leading up to a grand finale at the Supreme Court. The end is nigh for these anti-gay laws. Why do you need the State to shove religious opinions down everyone else’s throat?

 

[Maso]

Those Roman and Byzantian Christians are the ones who survived after the fact.

 

[Honorius]

Those Roman and Byzantian Christians are the ones who survived after the fact.

Perhaps you could explain this statement a little more.

 

[Maso]

Perhaps you could explain this statement a little more.

The Christians walked away from a situation created by those poor sexually disorientated souls and it will happen again here in America and in Europe. Good luck with your future…

 

[livingwordunity]

For the same reason blacks and whites needed Loving v. Virginia.

In the beginning, marriage was one man and one woman without consideration of race. But in early America some whites tried to mess with the original definition of marriage and tried to redefine marriage to have it mean same-race. Today, people are trying to redefine marriage again but this time to have it mean same-sex. In both cases, whether redefining marriage to have it mean same-race or redefining it to have it mean same-sex it is a deviation from how marriage was in the beginning. And so-called “same-sex marriage” ignores the philosophical and scientific questions of why the human race is made male and female, why only females have wombs and get pregnant, and why pregnancy and the creation of a new and unique human life doesn’t happen without the egg from a woman joining with the sperm from a man.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=EmperorNapoleon;11324050]For the same reason blacks and whites needed Loving v. Virginia.

Loving V. Virginia had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage and frankly was unconstitutional because it clearly violates the plenary powers clause.

Jefferson, for one, railed against this kind of activism as early as 1803.

It’s the truth, but more or less a moot point because all people really gave up was their freedom to be racist in terms of relationships and back in those days, most had their own business to tend to and lost interest and got on with life.

Even so, the ruling was based in part on the fact that fecundity was not limited by race.

A gay couple cannot have children.

In fact, this is a reflection of events leading up to that decision; complete with States slowly toppling the old tired prejudices like dominos and leading up to a grand finale at the Supreme Court.

The end is nigh for these anti-gay laws.

Those laws are not anti-gay.

Why do you need the State to shove religious opinions down everyone else’s throat?

I don’t. I’ve advocated for states rights on here, among other things, and I get flak for it just the same.

Believe it or not, I’m not in favor of consolidation of federal power in the name of religion because the result would still be the same. There are some posters on here who really think a Catholic theocracy would solve the problems. If they think the Church is hated now, oh man, they haven’t seen anything yet.

As for your so-called “gay marriage”, see what happens as Muslims and social conservatives re-dominate the globe after a few generations.

Think mosques in Michigan or Black Churches in the South are going to put up with that nonsense?

I sincerely doubt the gay rights movement would challenge them. Sharpton and Jackson won’t even force this on them.

Because this is about money and political correctness for a bunch of straight activists, mostly able bodied white men, finding a new version of victimhood so they can fit in with minorities and women as mutual “victims” because today in the West it’s cool to be a victim. And why?

Because it’s easier for someone to say they are gay or bisexual than to be a woman or someone of the opposite skin colour.

The GLBTQ movement, whether it wins, loses, or ties is nothing more than a collection of pawns for the secular elite to advance their agenda.

In the end, the progressives will lose, one way or another, because their selfish philosophy is inherently destructive. You won’t hear that much on here on in the First World media, but you can and will find it in articles and research done on the rise and fall of human civilization.

America has already seen it with Native Americans, Blacks and single women.

See the scandal for what it is.

The best thing you or any other GLBTQ person can do is to seek Christ in the Catholic Church.

Because I can pretty much promise that a lot of the people fighting for these so-called rights couldn’t care less about what happens to you.

So it’s your choice.

Make a wise one.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In the beginning, marriage was one man and one woman without consideration of race. But in early America some whites tried to mess with the original definition of marriage and tried to redefine marriage to have it mean same-race. Today, people are trying to redefine marriage again but this time to have it mean same-sex. In both cases, whether redefining marriage to have it mean same-race or redefining it to have it mean same-sex it is a deviation from how marriage was in the beginning. And so-called “same-sex marriage” ignores the philosophical and scientific question of why the human race is made male and female, why only females have wombs and get pregnant, and why pregnancy and the creation of a new and unique human life doesn’t happen without the egg from a woman joining with the sperm from a man.

Exactly. Homosexual acts are behaviors; race is not.

 

[SuperLuigi]

1. Right, but I do not think we have to worry about having fire and brimstone rained down upon us from the heavens.

If you have to take everything literally from the Old Testament, I suggest speaking to the Jews. In the meantime it would be good to familiarize yourself with the wonderful gift of literary art and stop spending so much time in anti-Christian circles that tell you we all take the Bible literally—every passage and every word.

Furthermore, don’t try to witty about such an ignorant claim. It makes you look…silly.

1. By the end of the Roman Empire, pretty much everyone was a Christian (thanks to Theodosius I, who decreed Christianity the state religion), therefore implying that many followed Christian morality in the aspect of marriage at least. Also, the Theodosian Code, which came into effect in 438, punished those guilty of homosexual acts with being burned alive.

And like any** big totalitarian government,** many of the leaders **refused to follow the laws they made **or inherited for everyone else.

Kind of like today’s American Democratic Party and some of the RINOS and Independent establishment-types. Vote to raise taxes and then leave the state or the county for a tax haven or wire your money to Grand Cayman where it sits in a bank.

It’s easy to call yourself a Christian. Quite another to act like one.

And sorry, but marrying little boys, performing sexual acts of pedophilia followed by murder and prostitution and homosexual acts are not permitted in Christianity.

However, numerous pagan and secular societies tolerated such behaviour.

How are they doing today?

The secular East Asia and the West is about to jump off a cliff. And waiting in the wings are Islam, China and Russia----just like those annoying barbarians in the Germanic forest who were the forebears of the Anglo-Saxons who would build Britain, Germany and later North America.

 

[SuperLuigi]

First will come lawsuits against companies in states that do not recognize gay marriage. Even though the state does not recognize gay marriage, if a company located in that state does interstate business with a state that does, or does business with the government, it will be sued to provide benefits to partners of same sex couples, thereby getting around state law or even a vote for a change in state law. Big companies will cave in first, followed by smaller companies. Small business owners who do not provide benefits for same sex partners will be vilified and called homophobic.

It’s never going to be enough for them, especially when the relationships fail, which happens A LOT. They talk about so-called “gay marriage” but what** follows** a lot is something called gay divorce.

I suspect, however, that they’ll leave certain sectors alone, such as Islam, Orthodox Judaism and minority-dominated Churches and temples.

All because this entire “gay rights” movement was inflated to get the Democratic Party votes, and they cannot afford these kinds of fractures in their coalition held together by the mighty US dollar.

It’s right in front of our noses.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Loving V. Virginia had absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage and frankly was unconstitutional because it clearly violates the plenary powers clause.

If you think Loving v. Virginia has no relevance to the legal issue of gay marriage then your view of Supreme Court decisions is extremely narrow and not reflective of legal reality. It didn’t even come close to violating plenary powers. The plenary powers of the States are limited by the Constitution and the determination of what is Constitutional is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Jefferson, for one, railed against this kind of activism as early as 1803.

Jefferson was a sociopath and borderline anarchist.

A gay couple cannot have children.

The willingness or ability to procreate has never been a legal requirement to obtain a marriage license in this country.

I don’t. I’ve advocated for states rights on here, among other things, and I get flak for it just the same.

Except when the States don’t agree with you apparently.

Believe it or not, I’m not in favor of consolidation of federal power in the name of religion because the result would still be the same. There are some posters on here who really think a Catholic theocracy would solve the problems. If they think the Church is hated now, oh man, they haven’t seen anything yet.

Well, at least we agree on something.

As for your so-called “gay marriage”, see what happens as Muslims and social conservatives re-dominate the globe after a few generations.

I think that is extremely unlikely.

Think mosques in Michigan or Black Churches in the South are going to put up with that nonsense? I sincerely doubt the gay rights movement would challenge them. Sharpton and Jackson won’t even force this on them.

Blacks, while lagging behind, aren’t an issue. Support for gay marriage among blacks has nearly doubled in the last 10 years alone.

The GLBTQ movement, whether it wins, loses, or ties is nothing more than a collection of pawns for the secular elite to advance their agenda.

I think you are mistaken if you think we aren’t using them as much if not more than they are using us. The pawns are in Washington we’re rapidly moving towards checkmate on this issue.

Because I can pretty much promise that a lot of the people fighting for these so-called rights couldn’t care less about what happens to you.

Eh, I’d rather be behind someone who couldn’t care less about what happens to me than someone who makes it their personal business to attack me or wants me dead.

 

[Maso]

…leave the state or the county for a tax haven or wire your money to Grand Cayman where it sits in a bank.
…

Not anymore they don’t…

 

[SuperLuigi]

If you think Loving v. Virginia has no relevance to the legal issue of gay marriage then your view of Supreme Court decisions is extremely narrow and not reflective of legal reality

.

Supreme Court decisions usually are narrow as opposed to sweeping. We’re actually fortunate to some degree that is more often than naught the case.

It didn’t even come close to violating plenary powers.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think the older generation which gave us;

• the contraceptive pill,
• no-fault divorce
• abortion on demand,

…unwittingly produced the younger generation that is cynical and apathetic about the nuclear family and heterosexual monogamous, lifelong marriage.

These kids who grew up with estranged parents, custody battles, domestic violence, weekend visitation, step ‘dads’, etc. etc. are now asking themselves, whats the big deal?
Is it any wonder they answer opinion poll surveys about SSM with an attitude of…* 'so-what" wheres the harm?*

It’s time we started using “The Family”[sup]TM[/sup] as the focal point of our Christian apologetics and evangelism in these challenging times.

We need to get back to A Permanent Nazareth.

Increasing missionary zeal cannot be a vague generality but must find itself planted in human communities. There is no more fundamental or basic of all human communities than the family…It is hard to imagine evangelisation in the Catholic Tradition at any level without direct reference to the evangelising action of the family.

Bishop Christopher Prowse
Catholic Bishop of Sale (Australia)

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Supreme Court decisions usually are narrow as opposed to sweeping. We’re actually fortunate to some degree that is more often than naught the case.

I don’t think that is accurate. Supreme Court rulings are never narrow in their applications. In fact, they are rather broad. The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides a case without justifying their decision by applying prior related decisions to the legal question they are faced with.

It did just that. But the American public, largely ignorant of understanding the Constitution since basically its inception, has allowed the courts to strip their freedom here and there. The plenary powers is very clear about states rights. And you’ve got it backwards: The Constitution limits FEDERAL, not state powers.

The Constitution limits State powers every bit as much as it limits Federal powers. The States cannot claim some plenary power as justification to disregard the Bill of Rights.

Jefferson probably had Asperger’s. That’s not a sociopathic condition. And we know…anyone who dares takes away your “rights” to trample on your neighbor’s freedom while rummaging through his wallet is an “anarchist”.

Anyone who says there should be a violent revolution every 20 years is an anarchist.

It’s the only reason why states are even involved in it.

That just is not the case. The States don’t care if you have children. They don’t care why you are getting married.

Well, that’s why we vote. Problem is you’ve signed up with the side of the aisle that thinks magical demographics will keep them in power for ever.

I’ve signed up with the “side” that believes civil rights are not subject to popular vote.

Why? Have you seen the numbers in Europe and Australia? Think it’s just colonial guilt that gets them to take in all these people? Think the party in the USA that’s for feminism, contraception and abortion on demand and “marriages” that have zero chance to make a child are in a position to be lecturing the others on demographics?

I don’t think certain demographics are in any position to lecture anyone on morality.

According to who? The gay rights movement? Think Blacks will be as supportive once Obama retires?

Read.

Most people in the movement don’t even understand the fundamental issues. All they know is that somewhere down the line marriage became this imaginary “right” and that evil rich straight white men are holding them down.

Marriage became a right in Loving v. Virginia.

Yeah, they told the Natives, Blacks, Latinos and women the same thing. How they doin’ these days? I grew next to a Reservation and we’re still waiting for this great utopia of equality going on 150 years or so where no one will ever have a bad or hurt feeling again

I guess it just depends on how you frame the discussion. I would argue that many of them are resting on the laurels of, for example, the major victories of the civil rights movement. Equal opportunity exists…if they don’t take advantage of it then thats their problem.

That’s interesting, because it was socialists in WWII who were throwing homosexuals, among others, into camps and it’s radical Muslims, whom the left gets cozy with out of fear and wonder, who are executing gays.

Interesting how times have changed isn’t it? Now socialists are embracing equality while religiously motivated right wingers and Christians are calling for us to be tossed into concentration camps, imprisoned and executed, and leading mobs to viciously attack gay people in the streets.

But hey, if you want to believe in DC that they “care” for you, that’s your choice.

Do these people “care” for me?

I’m sure at heart you try to be a good person and look for answers.

Thanks!

 

[Honorius]

The Christians walked away from a situation created by those poor sexually disorientated souls and it will happen again here in America and in Europe. Good luck with your future…

Perhaps you would mind telling us who these evil sexually disoriented souls are. Not being specific is making it sound like you are a Neo Nazi blaming the communist Jews for everything.

 

[Honorius]

And like any** big totalitarian government,** many of the leaders **refused to follow the laws they made **or inherited for everyone else.

Well, assuming we are still talking about Rome and Byzantium, it is not really breaking the law when you are the supreme legislator.

And sorry, but marrying little boys, performing sexual acts of pedophilia followed by murder and prostitution and homosexual acts are not permitted in Christianity.

However, numerous pagan and secular societies tolerated such behaviour.

These actions were not permitted in the later Roman Empire a la the Theodosian Code and Code of Justinian.

How are they doing today?

The secular East Asia and the West is about to jump off a cliff. And waiting in the wings are Islam, China and Russia----just like those annoying barbarians in the Germanic forest who were the forebears of the Anglo-Saxons who would build Britain, Germany and later North America.

Well first off, I would not consider China to be the epitome of a religious society, such as the nations of the Middle East and Russia. Second, I would argue that Rome fell not because those annoying barbarians got smarter or better, but because Rome sunk beneath them. I would view the situation with the United States similar, except that we have not yet sunk below Russia, China, and (Heaven forbid!), Iran and friends.

 

[Maso]

Perhaps you would mind telling us who these evil sexually disoriented souls are. Not being specific is making it sound like you are a Neo Nazi blaming the communist Jews for everything.

From Petronius Arbiter all the way to Andy Warhol… but those are only the media darlings. Depravity has been around always.

 

[Monkey1976]

I don’t think that is accurate. Supreme Court rulings are never narrow in their applications. In fact, they are rather broad. The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, decides a case without justifying their decision by applying prior related decisions to the legal question they are faced with.

Therefore, to understand the context of the decision in Loving, we need to review the cases cited in support of that decision. We’ll do that below.

That just is not the case. The States don’t care if you have children. They don’t care why you are getting married.

Actually, the case cited in Loving v. Virginia as support for the decision that marriage is a civil right would disagree. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court held that compulsory sterilization was unconstitutional because it violated the right to “marry and procreate”:
"Skinner v Oklahoma:

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

So, it would seem that the two are directly linked in the eyes of the law.

I’ve signed up with the “side” that believes civil rights are not subject to popular vote.

A gay person has always had the same right to marry as a straight person, subject to the same restrictions: Of age, no close degree of relation, not already married, and opposite sex. If there is sufficient reason to remove one of these restrictions because same-sex attracted persons don’t like the options which these restrictions present, then what reason is there for any of them?

Marriage became a right in Loving v. Virginia.

Marriage became a right with the first male and female pairing of our species. It was formally recognized as such by the US Supreme Court in Skinner v Oklahoma, and confirmed in Loving v Virginia. Why did the USSC confirm it as a right? In their own words in Maynard v Hill (also cited in Loving as support for marriage being a right):
Maynard v Hill:

The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.