As You Like It - Men Becoming Women

Unlikely. It's an incredibly minor point.

It's the same thing, sorry I've got guests and didn't have time to look up the exact wording.

Splitting hairs gets us no where.

"In China, especially in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family.

In ancient Rome [...] the Emperor Nero is reported to have married, at different times, two other men in wedding ceremonies. Other Roman Emperors are reported to have done the same thing.

Finally, in Europe during Hellenic times, pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities, and also had an erotic component."

From NationMaster Encyclopedia
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Homosexual-marriage

The quote below that you made earlier is definitely *implying* that it is the consummation that makes the marriage 'legal' and since church has nothing to do with legality, that means "binding":





Sex education in schools these days is so lame that they do not really even talk about intercourse at all, so it is totally not applicable as far as I can see. If they ever do teach real sex ed in school, I do not see a problem discussing anal sex, vaginal sex, and oral sex.




Here I just had to mention that having sex with an animal actually is not illegal in all states - found that out doing research for a beastility thread debate once.

It isn't the same but, regardless, if a homosexual couple wants to go down to the courthouse and get married, that doesn't involve your religion at all and consequently doesn't prohibit "the free exercise thereof."

No, it is not.

Unless Congress passes a law requiring churches to perform gay marriages (which won't happen) there is no First Amendment issue.

When you want to do multiple quotes or separate one into multiples, just make sure each 'quote' starts with the " [ QUOTE=<name> ] " part and ends with the " [ / QUOTE ] " part. Hopefully that is helpful. And I added a bunch of spacing to hopefully not make it really quote the stuff.

"Although state-recognized same-sex marriage is a relatively new phenomenon in Western society, there is a long history of same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males may also do similar things.

In Japan, Shudo, the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo is analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia).

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period.[11]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

So why discuss the churches if we are going to permit individual opinion to overrule the church itself? If the ELCA says that marriage is not included among the sacraments, then it is not a sacrament in the ELCA. The ELCA is not a pastoral church and the central church is somewhat insistent on its prerogatives. Go argue with them.

As to what we Unitarian Universalists base the argument for gay marriages in the church, it is simply that we haven't heard a single good argument for excluding gays, lesbians and transgenders from any rite or function of the church or church life. We have GLTs in church office and we have GLTs teaching in the Religious Ed. Some churches have gays and lesbians in the pulpit (not sure about any transgenders). What of it?

"The practice of same-sex marriage was found in Africa as well. In ancient Egypt, the couple of Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum were a married couple that helped serve the Pharoah’s family in the Egyptian 5th dynasty. They were the Overseers of the Manicurists in the Palace of the King and shared a special tomb upon their deaths, a great honor. At the same time, the Azande tribe of Congo had a tradition where young men would be married by elder men, who would pay a bride price to the father of the younger individual who they would marry for a time."
http://www.pinke.biz/articles/67/Historical-Homosexuality-Gay-Marriage-in-Ancient-Times/

I don't know. Why don't you ask congress or your state congressman or congresswoman 'cuz with DOMA it's very complicated.

Here's some excepts, but you can research a lot of things on the computer yourself or go to other forums where this topic is more suited.

Here's some of DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives[2], and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

At the time of passage, it was expected that at least one state would soon legalize same-sex marriage, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation of either the state or federal constitution. Opponents of such recognition feared (and many proponents hoped) that the other states would then be required to recognize such marriages under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution.

Including the results of the 2008 general elections, two states (Massachusetts and Connecticut) allow same-sex marriage, five states recognize some alternative form of same-sex union, twelve states ban any recognition of any form of same-sex unions including civil union, twenty-eight states have adopted amendments to their state constitution prohibiting same sex marriage, and another twenty states have enacted statutory DOMAs.

The first amendment would come closer to not allowing the government to even make a law that attributed any aspect of marriage to religious beliefs, thereby allowing homosexual marriage.


And as far as I am concerned, me arguing and trying to convince you to change your view is not intolerance or hate -- it is called conversation and debate.


One of the biggest problems with the 'Religious Right' movement is that their definition of 'tolerance' only goes one direction. And they want to keep church and state separated as long as it is other churches.

Well, no. Have you actually read the Old Testament (use any version you want)? Does yours actually only refer to one man, one woman marriages? If so, it is different than any and all that I have read - and I have two annotated versions alone that say otherwise.

I think you also need to actually go look at the books of other religions. One man, one woman is probably only in the majority in the last couple of centuries. The founding books of most of the world religions are distinctly not so.

So going with the thought that practically everyone of substance in the Old Testament had multiple wives and that is no longer considered appropriate, why are you using it as an authority for any other area of marital contract? What, we have a third covenant you Christians haven't told us about? (CLDS feel free to jump in here and really screw up this section of the conversation.)

"For example, in late medieval France, the term affrèrement -- roughly translated as brotherment -- was used to refer to a certain type of legal contract, which also existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe. These documents provided the foundation for non-nuclear households of many types and shared many characteristics with marriage contracts, as legal writers at the time were well aware, according to Tulchin.

The new "brothers" pledged to live together sharing 'un pain, un vin, et une bourse' -- one bread, one wine, and one purse. [...]

The effects of entering into an affrèrement were profound. As Tulchin explains: "All of their goods usually became the joint property of both parties, and each commonly became the other's legal heir. They also frequently testified that they entered into the contract because of their affection for one another. As with all contracts, affrèrements had to be sworn before a notary and required witnesses, commonly the friends of the affrèrés."

Tulchin argues that in cases where the affrèrés were single unrelated men, these contracts provide "considerable evidence that the affrèrés were using affrèrements to formalize same-sex loving relationships. . .""

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823110231.htm

It might be time to return to the IQ thread maybe -- or at least the part that was talking about you and your family's extremely high IQ.

You know - that would explain a lot.

This:is most definitely NOT the same as:



Though you thinking it is the same, sure explains a lot to me.

/me bites his lip VERY hard

All of which has nothing to do with whether or not we conduct marriages within our church. The law effects whether or not those marriages are considered legal for the licensing state. The marriage is of effect in the church, but grants no rights in inheritance, in a hospital visiting room, etc.

We will continue on, make the rallies and hope to overcome ignorance and bigotry directed toward how unaffiliated others conduct their lives. The polls indicate that the next generation will move us forward to that goal.

I'm not so sure it was same sex marriage cuz I don't believe every webpage on the internet nor do I have time. I prefer libraries and I have free access to a university library. Some ancient religions had same sex slaves but more truthfully sex slaves of both sexes. However, ancient pagan practices are not recognized as religion in the U.S. if detrimental to society, i.e., Satanism will never be recognized as a religion due to it's murder sacrifice rites. You can be a Satanist I suppose, but you cannot murder anything just because that is what you believe. Some third world countries still carry out the underage sex slave trade. That has nothing to do with America, however. Nor is what you wrote above protected under the First Amendment.

Have I mentioned how much I love you and your posts?

I have a little time, explain the difference.

Apparently I'm not doing it right.

I'll go find some stuff from actual universities. LOL.

Are you completely ignorant? Satanism is not in any way pagan. There are no "murder sacrifice rites" in any organized Satanic group (like the Church of Satan, for example). You clearly have no clue what you're talking about. At all.

Most 'historical' cases of Satanism as paganism were products of the imaginations and fancies of the Christian Churches at the time and had little to do with actual paganism (and the fact is that most practicing pagans were accused under lay law reflecting Christian values - the Roman Catholic church tended to accuse and try their own adherents as Satanists). The vast majority of modern pagans, Wiccas, and of the Craft are not only not related to Satanism in any way, but they aren't even particularly involved in the supernatural, which Satanism is in most forms. I suggest you be well prepared before you start spouting nonsense of that which you know even less of and stick to the your version of the Christian churches.