Gay Marriage And What It Could Mean The Lds Church.

[webbles]

Well I understand your need to cherry pick certain lines.  But let's be clear.  The article says many things about SSM.  The article on marriage also states.

 

That's actually pretty interesting because from the other wikipedia link it says (which I partially quoted):

 

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).^[36]

 

So, which is correct?  I'm guessing that the one from your first quote is better since it actually deals with Roman terms and mentions two extraneous cases.  But I'd be curious to know.  Unfortunately, both the references aren't accessible online (or at least I was unable to find it quickly).

 

Edited to add:

I found the following links that have also talk about the Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Male.E2.80.93male_sex

http://hnn.us/article/21319

 

In all of them, the talk about how it was acceptable for a male Roman citizen to engage in the behavior but none of the relationships were legally valid.  They sometimes had ceremonies in the earlier time but those still had no validity.  So, as far I as I can tell, the Romans did not have legally valid same-sex marriages.

[webbles]

I think if you read thorough the entire article, you get a better idea how same sex marriage has been handled for centuries.  What is clear that at different times SSM has met different things.  You are welcome to pick the parts from the article that you want to use to support your own agenda.  I am simply providing the link for those that are interested in the history of SSM.  What is clear and undeniable is that SSM is not a new idea.  It has been around in one form or another since well before the time of Christ and continued long after His death.  At times it was more legally binding than at other times and met different things in different societies.  

 

Is SSM exactly like what we have today?  Probably not.  But either is opposite sex marriage the same as what we have today.  Straight marriage also varies even today among different cultures.  Not much has changed.  There has never been a world wide consensus of either.

 

Here is the link to how different straight marriage has been and is currently defined in the world.

 

Marriage

I did read through the entire article.  I also read through various other articles.  You seem to be conflating same-sex relationships and legal same-sex marriages.  We currently have same-sex relationships in today society just like many through out history.  But what is demanded today is legal same-sex marriages which is extremely rare through out history (as your links have indicated).

[california boy]

I did read through the entire article.  I also read through various other articles.  You seem to be conflating same-sex relationships and legal same-sex marriages.  We currently have same-sex relationships in today society just like many through out history.  But what is demanded today is legal same-sex marriages which is extremely rare through out history (as your links have indicated).

 

 

That's actually pretty interesting because from the other wikipedia link it says (which I partially quoted):

 

 

So, which is correct?  I'm guessing that the one from your first quote is better since it actually deals with Roman terms and mentions two extraneous cases.  But I'd be curious to know.  Unfortunately, both the references aren't accessible online (or at least I was unable to find it quickly).

 

Edited to add:

I found the following links that have also talk about the Roman Empire:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Gay_marriage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_ancient_Rome#Male.E2.80.93male_sex

http://hnn.us/article/21319

 

In all of them, the talk about how it was acceptable for a male Roman citizen to engage in the behavior but none of the relationships were legally valid.  They sometimes had ceremonies in the earlier time but those still had no validity.  So, as far I as I can tell, the Romans did not have legally valid same-sex marriages.

 

The truth is, I have no idea whether there has been legal SSM in the past or not.  The documentation seems to be mixed.  i am sure part of the confusion comes from our looking at history only from our current perspective.  The one article reported that several emperors including Nero had same sex marriages.  I have a feeling that if an emperor had a SSM, and wanted it to be legally recognized, it would be.  Straight marriages were also not recognized in the same sense they are today.  Marriage of all types were substantially different.  If one could simply say, "I divorce you" three times and they are no longer married, then just how did the state recognize that marriage in the first place?  Were marriage licenses always issued by governments?  Was it solely a religious function and there was no government involvement?  I think the answer to these questions is yes for all of them.  Different groups had different ways of recognizing marriage.  I don't think anyone can simply state that this marriage was legal and this marriage clearly was not. But what is undeniable is that there were gay marriages, not just gay relationships.

[webbles]

The truth is, I have no idea whether there has been legal SSM in the past or not.  The documentation seems to be mixed.  i am sure part of the confusion comes from our looking at history only from our current perspective.  The one article reported that several emperors including Nero had same sex marriages.  I have a feeling that if an emperor had a SSM, and wanted it to be legally recognized, it would be.  Straight marriages were also not recognized in the same sense they are today.  Marriage of all types were substantially different.  If one could simply say, "I divorce you" three times and they are no longer married, then just how did the state recognize that marriage in the first place?  Were marriage licenses always issued by governments?  Was it solely a religious function and there was no government involvement?  I think the answer to these questions is yes for all of them.  Different groups had different ways of recognizing marriage.  I don't think anyone can simply state that this marriage was legal and this marriage clearly was not. But what is undeniable is that there were gay marriages, not just gay relationships.

I think the problem is that you are trying to use the historical marriages as a reason why we should give legal validity to same-sex marriages today.  That doesn't work out.  Most of the historical marriages (both same-sex and opposite-sex) were more similar to our common law marriages or to "shacking up".  Since Lawerence v. Texas, we have had same-sex marriages in the same sense as the historical marriages.  And since the creation of domestic partnerships and civil unions, same-sex marriages have even more legal weight than the majority of historical marriages.

[california boy]

I think the problem is that you are trying to use the historical marriages as a reason why we should give legal validity to same-sex marriages today.  That doesn't work out.  Most of the historical marriages (both same-sex and opposite-sex) were more similar to our common law marriages or to "shacking up".  Since Lawerence v. Texas, we have had same-sex marriages in the same sense as the historical marriages.  And since the creation of domestic partnerships and civil unions, same-sex marriages have even more legal weight than the majority of historical marriages.

Not at all.  I was only responding to somone who asked what the history of gay marriage was.  Gay marriage is becoming legal in this country, not because of tradition, but because of the 14th amendment that guarentees equal protection under the law regardless of traditions.  If tradition was a reason to deny equal protection, there would still be slavery. no interacial marriage, etc.

[webbles]

Not at all.  I was only responding to somone who asked what the history of gay marriage was.  Gay marriage is becoming legal in this country, not because of tradition, but because of the 14th amendment that guarentees equal protection under the law regardless of traditions.  If tradition was a reason to deny equal protection, there would still be slavery. no interacial marriage, etc.

Ok, I guess I misread you.  Have a Merry Christmas.

[california boy]

Methodists In Crisis Over Gay Marriage, Church Law

 

An interesting artical on how the Methodists are struggling with this issue.  Here are a few quotes from the article, though I think the whole thing is an interesting read.

 

 

 

On the final day of the assembly, at a gathering of Methodists who support gay marriage, Talbert announced, "The time for talking is over."

"I declare to you that the derogatory language and restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience," Talbert told the cheering crowd. "I call on the more than 1,100 clergy who have signed the pledge to stand firm on their resolve to perform marriages among same-sex persons, same-sex couples, and to do so in the normal course of their pastoral duties, thus defying the laws that prohibit them from doing so."

He called the weddings "an act of biblical obedience" to the teaching that all people are created in God's image. Dorothee Benz, of Methodists in New Directions, a New York advocacy group spearheading the gay marriage drive, said, "that language of biblical obedience became a messaging touchstone."

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The church is already partly in schism. You've got bishops not obeying the law of the church. You have pastors not obeying the law of the church," Steinmetz said. "How long can they live with two mindsets? I just don't know."

 

[Buzzard]

Methodists In Crisis Over Gay Marriage, Church Law

 

An interesting artical on how the Methodists are struggling with this issue.  Here are a few quotes from the article, though I think the whole thing is an interesting read.

 

Thanks, CB, for making the very point that you and I went back and forth on. I know a few Methodists, nice folk. But if the article is correct, that gays within the Methodist church are telling those who want to adhere to church law and discipline to go hang themselves, they are going to do whatever they want, and if it tears their religion into pieces, I guess that's just collateral damage. I also found it telling that the article says they have been debating this since the 1970's. 

Makes me glad to belong to a religion that has the authority to speak in the name of God, and does so regularly. 

I do wonder how long it will be before some rogue LDS bishop performs a gay ceremony. Of course, the next day, he won't be a bishop, or probably LDS. But he will get his 15 minutes of fame as some sort of a hero to the gay community. 

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks, CB, for making the very point that you and I went back and forth on. I know a few Methodists, nice folk. But if the article is correct, that gays within the Methodist church are telling those who want to adhere to church law and discipline to go hang themselves, they are going to do whatever they want, and if it tears their religion into pieces, I guess that's just collateral damage. I also found it telling that the article says they have been debating this since the 1970's. 

Makes me glad to belong to a religion that has the authority to speak in the name of God, and does so regularly. 

I do wonder how long it will be before some rogue LDS bishop performs a gay ceremony. Of course, the next day, he won't be a bishop, or probably LDS. But he will get his 15 minutes of fame as some sort of a hero to the gay community. 

 

It's gonna happen sooner or later. We can't invalidate a legal marriage, but that doesn't mean we have to recognize it either.

[california boy]

Thanks, CB, for making the very point that you and I went back and forth on. I know a few Methodists, nice folk. But if the article is correct, that gays within the Methodist church are telling those who want to adhere to church law and discipline to go hang themselves, they are going to do whatever they want, and if it tears their religion into pieces, I guess that's just collateral damage. I also found it telling that the article says they have been debating this since the 1970's. 

Makes me glad to belong to a religion that has the authority to speak in the name of God, and does so regularly. 

I do wonder how long it will be before some rogue LDS bishop performs a gay ceremony. Of course, the next day, he won't be a bishop, or probably LDS. But he will get his 15 minutes of fame as some sort of a hero to the gay community. 

Well you distorted only slightly what the article was reporting.  I don't know where you got the idea that it was "gays within the Methodist church are telling those who want to adhere to church law and discipline to go hang themselves".  If you reread the article, it is the clergy themselves that feel the gospel of Christ is one of treating everyone the same and is inclusive in it's message.  There are over a thousand clergy that feel the current "derogatory language and restrictive laws in the Book of Discipline are immoral and unjust and no longer deserve our loyalty and obedience,"

 

I know you want to blame it on "the gays" but you are distorting what the article is saying.  You don't have to be gay to believe that every child of God deserves the same treatment and that sex outside of marriage is just as wrong for a gay person as it is for a straight person.

 

I am not suggesting that the LDS church is experiencing the same division, but I wouldn't be surprised if there will be growing numbers of members who will  have a hard time supporting the current exclusionary practice of not allowing gay marriage.  With the churches lack of revelation on the subject, it will make it increasingly more difficult for some members to "just go along" with current church policy.