Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

Jan 7, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: NBC Chicago

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Comments
2,581 - 2,600 of 17,568 Comments Last updated May 2, 2014

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2707
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
How ridiculous. That's like claiming that since black people were held as slaves during the first nearly 300 years of European occupation of North America, that clearly black people were not meant to be free. If they had simply NOT been held as slaves, it would have been proof positive that they weren't supposed to be held as slaves. You're using circular reasoning, which is illogical and WRONG.
What the heck are ya talking about laddie?
Gay people and gay couples have been around since the dawn of time. The only reason we haven't been more visible is the result of the tyranny and fear of the majority forcing gay folks to remain hidden. For you to claim that the fact that they weren't more visible throughout history means anything other than that they were forced to remain hidden is foolish.
Actually the word "gay" as a sexual reference used to refer to hedonistic heterosexual behavior. A 'gay man' was a womanizer, a 'gay woman' a prostitute. ya can't make this stuff up.

People with same sex attraction have always been around, not denying that. However the use of "gay" to denote a sexual politcal identity, is relatively new. Nor is same sex sexual behavior new. Its been tolerated, and/or allowed by various societies in various times and places. That doesn't mean it was equated with marriage, or viewed as marriage. We both know that. The idea of a same sex marraige, on par with opposite sex marriage, is a relatively recent idea. Really eJohnny, if SSM had deep sustained historical roots would this debate be necessary? No, because more than likely, it already be part of our culture.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2708
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
That's how YOU might consider them, but that's not how THEY might consider themselves. Is that how the law would see them? You don't know because there IS no law regarding recognition of polygamous marriages. THAT'S THE POINT.
Exactly....not yet anyway.
You can't simply say, "Polygamy is now legal" without dealing with all the possible combinations and permutations of people entering and exiting the marriage, either through death or divorce, and the rights and protections of both the person leaving and those still in the marriage.
I agree, it would be complex, and require some study.
If a man has three wives and wishes to divorce one wife, but that wife wishes to remain married to the other two wives, then what?
The wives entering into the marriage would be married to the husband only not to each other.
How about if a man with three wives has children with all of them, and one of them wishes to divorce. Are the remaining two wives on the hook for alimony and child support, too? Or just the husband?
He would be responsible for support for the children, not the other wives. Not that much different than if a single man has mutiple baby mammas.
Why are or aren't the remaining wives also responsible for it?
They're not the mother of the children, nor are they married to the divorcing wife.
A woman with two husbands wishes to divorce one of them and keep custody of their children. Who pays alimony and child support to who? Should the ex-husband pay alimony to the ex-wife?
I suppose that depends on the state where the marriage took place, to determine is the ex husband pays the ex wife. The still married husband would not be responsible for the ex husband.
The remaining husband? Should the two remaining married pay the ex-husband? Who pays child support and why?
The father of the children, as it is now.
A man with two wives passes away and leaves his entire estate to wife #2. Does wife #1 have any rights to the estate? Half? More? Less? Is he even allowed to cut out one of his wives in his will?
A man with three wives passes away. Are his three widows still married to each other?? Or are they all single again? Why??
This is where it can get messy. But a will can solve that issue.
Of course, you CAN create laws to deal with all these situations, but until you do, you CANNOT simply legalize polygamy. It's far too complex legally to simply dump such complex issues on the courts without any legal framework to work within.
Agreed, but not impossible to solve. I get to the other points in another post, running out of characters.
You don't need to consider ANY of those things with gay couples because each party has only ONE legally recognized spouse. ALL the same laws that apply to opposite gender couples will apply in exactly the same way with same gender couples.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because the only way you can remain in the discussion is to hammer on and on about polygamy?? Because it's REALLY TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion of marriage equality for gay COUPLES.
<quoted text>
Exactly. And there are similarities between a married couple and a blueberry pie, too. Some are sweet and wonderful and some are tough and unpleasant. So what? It doesn't make a married couple the same as a blueberry pie, does it?
<quoted text>
And that effects gay couples how, exactly?? I'm sure the Brown family enjoys blueberry pies every now and then, too, as do my husband and I. Does that mean that we're all blueberry pies??
<quoted text>
And, as we've been saying over and over, THEY CAN DO THAT!!! It's their right as citizens to pursue recognition of their civil rights using any and all arguments they believe will benefit them. SO F**KING WHAT???? That has NOTHING to do with gay couples legally marriying. NOTHING!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2709
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/05/11/church-...
(Edited for space) the Church used to teach that marriage could also be between two men or two women (or any other combination).(And note here that I mean the historic Church, which is Orthodoxy. But this would also include almost all churches that are more than about 100 years old.)
. Boswell himself was gay and the founder of the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale. He died of AIDS-related complications in 1994 at the age of 47. He was also a convert to Roman Catholicism from the Episcopal Church (despite his much greater similarity with the latter on sexual morality).
Anyway, the point of this post is not to invite debate (because for me, the matter really is settled, and there are a quadra-gazillion other places to debate these questions; as such, I am not turning on comments for this post), but rather to point out some of the several places online where one can read refutations of Boswell’s work, far better than anything I could put together. The slams, as they say, are dunked.
In the Case of John Boswell by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a Catholic convert from Lutheranism) examines the scholarly reception of Boswell’s work.
Gay Marriage: Reimaging Church History by Robin Darling Young is a detailed examination especially of the numerous specious translations in Boswell’s work (upon which his conclusions very much hang). Interesting in this piece is especially the reminiscence that its author experienced a same-sex union in an ancient church and was surprised to be told later by Boswell’s book that what she had experienced was actually a marriage. This is the first piece I ever read on this subject, and it packs a powerful punch.
Failed Attempt to Rewrite History by Fr. Patrick Viscuso is an examination specifically of the canonical and liturgical claims that Boswell makes and how they fail to square with the actual contexts of the rites being examined. Viscuso is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church and a canonist specializing especially in marriage questions. He is also cited(!) in Boswell’s work.
Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda by Marian Therese Horvat is a general review of Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, especially focusing on what the author calls Boswell’s “advocacy scholarship.”
A Groom of One’s Own? by Brent D. Shaw shows how anachronistic and tendentious Boswell’s readings of documents are. Shaw is himself in favor of the “liberationist movements of our time,” but he concludes that “tinkering with the moral balance of the past is a disservice to the study of history and to the reform of society.”
Good attempt to demonize and dehumanize Boswell, and of course a different interpretation of the documents, but doesn't change the fact the documents exist, and others disagree with the interpretations. Those who love to claim marriage has always been a man and a woman, hate this evidence.

Also fails to address the evidence of other authors, times, and places around the globe. Asia, Africa, and the Americas also have various ceremonies honoring same sex unions.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2710
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need to consider ANY of those things with gay couples because each party has only ONE legally recognized spouse. ALL the same laws that apply to opposite gender couples will apply in exactly the same way with same gender couples.
You ignore that the foundation is different. None of the language addressing the sexual union of husband and wife applies to SSCs, nor would one or two of the prohibitions. Opposite sex adult siblings are prohibited from marrying because of the possiblity of sexual procration and genetically defective children. Not an issue with ss siblings.
Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because the only way you can remain in the discussion is to hammer on and on about polygamy?? Because it's REALLY TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion of marriage equality for gay COUPLES.
Why is so hard for you to understand that once a fundamental change is made in marriage law, removal of conjugality, to accomodate one group, SSCs, there's no compelling reason why another fundamental change, removal of the number of spouses, to accomodate another group, polygamists, shouldn't happen? Why does the number two, trump conjugality, as in husband and wife, or wives?
Exactly. And there are similarities between a married couple and a blueberry pie, too. Some are sweet and wonderful and some are tough and unpleasant. So what? It doesn't make a married couple the same as a blueberry pie, does it?


Now if ya had said, canoli,or tiramasu, that would make sense.
And that effects gay couples how, exactly?? I'm sure the Brown family enjoys blueberry pies every now and then, too, as do my husband and I. Does that mean that we're all blueberry pies??
Now that intersting, the use of "husband" to refer to your male partner. Adoption of heteronormative marital language perhaps?
And, as we've been saying over and over, THEY CAN DO THAT!!! It's their right as citizens to pursue recognition of their civil rights using any and all arguments they believe will benefit them. SO F**KING WHAT???? That has NOTHING to do with gay couples legally marriying. NOTHING!
Easy now, no need for profanity. eJohnny, you sound like a bright lad. You know, as well as I, that plural marriage practitioners are using some of the same argument that SSM advocates have used. The Brown family has used recognition of gay marriage in their lawsuits against the state of Utah. So yes it has SOMETHING, maybe not everything..or maybe...to do with same sex couples marrying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21t...
"...polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.

One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under Lawrence.

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

Justice Scalia is right in one respect, though not intentionally. Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2711
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Never said they were, but thanks for asking.
<quoted text>
Marriage in the U.S., prior to 2004 was a male female union of husband and wife. It was, and still is, presumed that husband and wife will consumate, and engage in "marital relations". While not a requirement, and there are couples who choose not, or cannot not, consumate, or procreate, they are exceptions to the rule. Never the less that does not change the expectations for, nor understanding of, marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife. There is no deep seated, historical, legal, cultural, and/or religious of marriage as simply a union of two persons regardless of gender compostition. That is a recent, revisionist concept of marriage.
<quoted text>
Most also understand the difference between boys and girls by the time they reach the first grade also. They also know, most do anyway, that they have a mommy and a daddy, that it took a mommy and daddy to make them.
I said 2=2

You said 1+1 equals 3 or more. I assumed you meant the 2 make children. Since children are not married to the parents, 2 still equal 2, whether the 2 multiply or not. 3 or more married adults still does not equal 2.

There are a large numbers of marriages, often second, third, or more, that involve people too old for procreation. Your desire to require procreation ability as a requirement for marriage is your own prejudice, not a fact of law. The law recognizes procreation is none of their business when it comes to protecting the fundamental right of marriage.

The difference between boys and girls isn't quite as clear as you would like it to be, or would like to impose on others. You also wish to deny the reality that sexual orientation is not the same as gender. There have always been straight, gay, and bisexual humans. Restricting equal rights on this basis has been tried and shown to be destructive, not productive.
Vinny

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2712
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I said 2=2
You said 1+1 equals 3 or more. I assumed you meant the 2 make children. Since children are not married to the parents, 2 still equal 2, whether the 2 multiply or not. 3 or more married adults still does not equal 2.
There are a large numbers of marriages, often second, third, or more, that involve people too old for procreation. Your desire to require procreation ability as a requirement for marriage is your own prejudice, not a fact of law. The law recognizes procreation is none of their business when it comes to protecting the fundamental right of marriage.
The difference between boys and girls isn't quite as clear as you would like it to be, or would like to impose on others. You also wish to deny the reality that sexual orientation is not the same as gender. There have always been straight, gay, and bisexual humans. Restricting equal rights on this basis has been tried and shown to be destructive, not productive.
There is no rational arguement for government involvement in any legal homosexual relationship. They share NONE of the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and later left at the state's door for support. No economically unequal genders are involved. No standard pattern exists. Homosexual 'marriages' have been so rare where legal that they are not a basic block of homosexual society or lack thereof much less of society in general.

Case dismissed!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2713
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The rules and language were changed for same sex couples, so the rules are no longer the same.
<quoted text>
Removing conjugaliy as the foundation of marriage changes what marriage is for OPPOSITE SEX couples. Plural marriage maintains the conjugality of the marital relationship while increasing the number of participants. Surely you must know this by now.
<quoted text>
Your arguments is one of the same ones used to oppose plural marriage. Interacial marriage maintained the conjugality of he marital relationship. The opposition was based on the concept of "micengenation" of the race. Opponents did not want the races, certain races, not all racial combinations were banned, mxing. Ironic you would oppose the ban on racially integrated marriages to argue for gender segregated marriges.
The over 1,138 rules and laws that determine what marriage is were not changed. The only change is an expansion of who can participate under the rules currently in effect.

No laws have been removed for opposite sex couples. Your desire to conceptualize it differently is all in your own head, not a fact of law. While free to do so, it is your own imagination.

Calling a removal of the restriction on gender a form of segregation is simply a misuse of the word. It relies on emotion, but is irrational. At best, all two person marriages are a form of segregation, in that they exclude all others, but it is a voluntary relationship, not an imposed one. Removing the gender restriction is the opposite of a restriction.

Again, the argument allowing equal treatment for inter-racial couples would lead to polygamy was used in the past, just as it is used to resist same sex marriage equality today.
Jerry

Pekin, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2714
Feb 20, 2013
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The over 1,138 rules and laws that determine what marriage is were not changed. The only change is an expansion of who can participate under the rules currently in effect.
No laws have been removed for opposite sex couples. Your desire to conceptualize it differently is all in your own head, not a fact of law. While free to do so, it is your own imagination.
Calling a removal of the restriction on gender a form of segregation is simply a misuse of the word. It relies on emotion, but is irrational. At best, all two person marriages are a form of segregation, in that they exclude all others, but it is a voluntary relationship, not an imposed one. Removing the gender restriction is the opposite of a restriction.
Again, the argument allowing equal treatment for inter-racial couples would lead to polygamy was used in the past, just as it is used to resist same sex marriage equality today.
Your racist claims have no basis in reality.

There is no logical connection between marriage and anything homosexual.

Homosexuals have overwhelmingly rejected 'marriage' in every country that allows it.

Homosexual 'marriage' is a cruel lie with no real basis in how homosexual live.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2715
Feb 20, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Splenda...splenda...splenda... (sigh)...I know that recognized same sex unions is not new, and there have been some scattered historical examples of such recognized union, as I have stated in numerous posts. The problem is when such examples are misinterpreted, as John Boswell did. Do I need to post links to sites debunking his claim of Church blessed same sex sexual union in Mideival Europe. Not every society that allowed, and/or tolerated same sex sexual behavior equated that with marriage. We both know this.
<quoted text>
gay christian101....pull-leez...I noticed they promote John Boswell's work as, pardon the pun, gospel. So I guess I'm gonna have to link sites proving other wise.
I offered 3 references, you attack Boswell's credibility, ignoring the fact the documents he found still exist, and are not the only ones around the world, and demean me as well. All of which still fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.

But I'll concede our modern attempt to be treated equally under the law is a modern version of what has been done in the past, and therefore very different in form if not function.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2716
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly....not yet anyway.
<quoted text>
I agree, it would be complex, and require some study.
<quoted text>
The wives entering into the marriage would be married to the husband only not to each other.
<quoted text>
He would be responsible for support for the children, not the other wives. Not that much different than if a single man has mutiple baby mammas.
<quoted text>
They're not the mother of the children, nor are they married to the divorcing wife.
<quoted text>
I suppose that depends on the state where the marriage took place, to determine is the ex husband pays the ex wife. The still married husband would not be responsible for the ex husband.
<quoted text>
The father of the children, as it is now.
<quoted text>
This is where it can get messy. But a will can solve that issue.
<quoted text>
Agreed, but not impossible to solve. I get to the other points in another post, running out of characters.
<quoted text>
Clearly, Polygamy is not the same as treating same sex couples equally under the laws currently in effect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2717
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Polygamy is a separate argument because it changes the rules, laws, and relationship dynamics of the entire society for straight and gay people on a fundamental level, while allowing gay people the same rights straight people currently enjoy does not change the rules, laws, or relationship dynamics for straight people. Polygamy is neither an equal legal nor social structure. It is a change of social order to something very different.

As practiced, polygamy restricts the availability of women, denying some men the opportunity for marriage, which would have a destabilizing effect on society, whereas allowing gay people to marry under the rules currently in place, has a stabilizing effect on those relationships and society in general.

As it is usually one man and as many women as he can afford, it would result in rich men having many wives with poorer men having none. That also results in older men having more wives while putting pressure on women to marry younger, as is currently the practice. This dynamic limits the possibilities for women to have equal opportunities in education, employment, and status, in and outside of the relationship.

It also changes the genetic balance by limiting the gene pool, which history has shown is not in the interest of survivability of the species.

Allowing gay people to marry does not limit the gene pool, but possibly expands it. Additionally, gay couples often adopt, and often take in the hard to place children that have been abused and discarded by their straight parents, which is another stabilizing influence on society, and under the current structure.

There are other frequently observed problems with polygamy including child abuse, spousal abuse, child custody, property divisions, and inequality of relationships. These examples should help to point out why polygamy is a separate argument. It is a different social and legal structure. Therefore, it cannot be considered equal treatment under the laws currently in effect.

It is a different argument, and far from an inevitable consequence of marriage equality. Allowing gay people the same opportunities and dignity straight people have however, is a matter of fairness and equality.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2718
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Good attempt to demonize and dehumanize Boswell, and of course a different interpretation of the documents, but doesn't change the fact the documents exist, and others disagree with the interpretations. Those who love to claim marriage has always been a man and a woman, hate this evidence.
Really.... is that the best "evidence"? Try something else that is excepted by fellow historians.
Also fails to address the evidence of other authors, times, and places around the globe. Asia, Africa, and the Americas also have various ceremonies honoring same sex unions.
He was simply addressing Boswell. Again recognized same sex unions doesn't mean they were equated as marriage, or as marriage on par with opposite sex couples.... c'mon Splenda you know this. No need to invent history.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2719
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Leg lamp...what the heck are you talking about? So the internet and gay marriage are two modern western invention.....is that it...anything else you might want to add?
Why do you think I consider being told I look like an idealized female form and insult? What are you going to call me next? Venus?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2720
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
I offered 3 references, you attack Boswell's credibility, ignoring the fact the documents he found still exist,
Those documents have been examined by others as well who have reached different conclusion than Mr. Boswell. The compelling evidence that these were same sex sexual unions is apparently not there.
and are not the only ones around the world, and demean me as well. All of which still fails to provide a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.
No demeaning of you is occuring here. Different situation, different treatment, very simple. If a man marries a woman, and vice versa, their union is treated like any other marriage. If a man wishes to have his intimate relationship with another man, or a woman with another woman, designated "marriage", that's a different situation, thus different treatment.
But I'll concede our modern attempt to be treated equally under the law is a modern version of what has been done in the past, and therefore very different in form if not function.
And in function as well....but kudos for the way you put it.

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2721
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
The rules and language were changed for same sex couples, so the rules are no longer the same.
<quoted text>
BFD. Language changes.
Pietro Armando wrote:
Removing conjugaliy as the foundation of marriage changes what marriage is for OPPOSITE SEX couples. Plural marriage maintains the conjugality of the marital relationship while increasing the number of participants. Surely you must know this by now.
<quoted text>
Your arguments is one of the same ones used to oppose plural marriage. Interacial marriage maintained the conjugality of he marital relationship. The opposition was based on the concept of "micengenation" of the race. Opponents did not want the races, certain races, not all racial combinations were banned, mxing. Ironic you would oppose the ban on racially integrated marriages to argue for gender segregated marriges.
Zzzz...

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2722
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Vinny wrote:
<quoted text>There is no rational arguement for government involvement in any legal homosexual relationship. They share NONE of the reasons for government involvement in real marriage. No child is ever born as a direct result and later left at the state's door for support. No economically unequal genders are involved. No standard pattern exists. Homosexual 'marriages' have been so rare where legal that they are not a basic block of homosexual society or lack thereof much less of society in general.
Case dismissed!
Speaking of cases, how is yours going, David M?
AzAdam

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2723
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
eJohn
Sounds like an electronic portable bathroom ...but anyway...really? Usually its the SSMers who cringe at the mention of plural marriage and same sex marriage in the same sentence, let alone the same discussion. Think about it, and I use America's favorite polygamists, the Brown family, as an example, why is it acceptable for a man to father several children out of wedlock with several different women, and almost no one takes notice anymore...but if a different man, like Kody does the same thing AND lives with said women and call them his wives, and they in turn call him their husband...then it becomes, "oh noooooo...he can't do that...that's not right...that's 'unequal' "?
You are absolutely right, but only on this one point. I would also add that a change in gender requirements and a change in number requirements can be discussed separately as easily as together.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2724
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Pietro Armando wrote:
That's just it. Marriage is about the sexes, what they do, have sex,and what results because of it, children. Take that away, and what the point of recognizing it at all?
So you cannot comprehend the point of recognizing marriages that don't or can't result in children?

According to your argument, that's it. That's the SOLE purpose of civil marriage.

Therefore, there must be no point in recognizing marriage between the elderly or the infertile.

Wrong.

Take away the children, and it can still be legal civil marriage. Take away the sex, and it can still be legal civil marriage.

Why are prisoners on death row, or lifers who aren't allowed conjugal visits, allowed to marry, while same-sex couples are denied this right (even when they are legally permitted to raise children, most of the time a child of one of the partners)?

You're whole argument is absolutely asinine in its inconsistency and chock full of so many fallacies that it's difficult to accept that an intelligent person could actually believe your nonsense.

No state defines civil marriage solely on the basis you assume. You can't provide ANY EVIDENCE to support the notion that civil marriage without resulting children is the SOLE purpose of the institution.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2725
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Last sentence should read:

You can't provide ANY EVIDENCE to support the notion that civil marriage that can only result in children is the SOLE purpose of the institution.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2726
Feb 21, 2013
 
Pietro Armando wrote:
http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/05/11/church-...
There have been several postings online in the past few days of various articles claiming that the Christian Church at some period in history formerly sanctioned same-sex weddings and treated them just like marriages between a single man and a single woman, based mainly on the work of the late John Boswell. Someone even posted one of those articles in the comments section of my previous post. The one making the most rounds is called When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite. These articles are served up as “gotchas” to unsuspecting Christians who were under the impression that Christian history is pretty unanimous about what Christian marriage is about.(Spoiler: Their impression is correct.)
Mind you, someone may reject the Church’s historic teaching on marriage. But there really are no legs to stand on when it comes to the claim that the Church used to teach that marriage could also be between two men or two women (or any other combination).(And note here that I mean the historic Church, which is Orthodoxy. But this would also include almost all churches that are more than about 100 years old.)
Anyway, there are numerous articles which thoroughly debunk Boswell’s work. His fellow historians didn’t take it seriously, and neither should you. The only people who do (and I really am not making this up) are those who either don’t know better or quite desperately want him to be right. Boswell himself was gay and the founder of the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale. He died of AIDS-related complications in 1994 at the age of 47. He was also a convert to Roman Catholicism from the Episcopal Church (despite his much greater similarity with the latter on sexual morality).
Anyway, the point of this post is not to invite debate (because for me, the matter really is settled, and there are a quadra-gazillion other places to debate these questions; as such, I am not turning on comments for this post), but rather to point out some of the several places online where one can read refutations of Boswell’s work, far better than anything I could put together. The slams, as they say, are dunked.
In the Case of John Boswell by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a Catholic convert from Lutheranism) examines the scholarly reception of Boswell’s work.
Gay Marriage: Reimaging Church History by Robin Darling Young is a detailed examination especially of the numerous specious translations in Boswell’s work (upon which his conclusions very much hang). Interesting in this piece is especially the reminiscence that its author experienced a same-sex union in an ancient church and was surprised to be told later by Boswell’s book that what she had experienced was actually a marriage. This is the first piece I ever read on this subject, and it packs a powerful punch.
Failed Attempt to Rewrite History by Fr. Patrick Viscuso is an examination specifically of the canonical and liturgical claims that Boswell makes and how they fail to square with the actual contexts of the rites being examined. Viscuso is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church and a canonist specializing especially in marriage questions. He is also cited(!) in Boswell’s work.
Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda by Marian Therese Horvat is a general review of Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, especially focusing on what the author calls Boswell’s “advocacy scholarship.”
A Groom of One’s Own? by Brent D. Shaw shows how anachronistic and tendentious Boswell’s readings of documents are. Shaw is himself in favor of the “liberationist movements of our time,” but he concludes that “tinkering with the moral balance of the past is a disservice to the study of history and to the reform of society.”
Thanks for the reference, I've been suspicious of Boswell's idiosyncratic history for some time.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••