Was Homosexual Marriage A Good Idea?

[Etagloc]

Was homosexual "marriage" a good idea?

 

[Damien50]

Was homosexual "marriage" a good idea?

Sure. For them.

But for all the religious that believe marriage is between a man and woman exclusively... Well we get to see who the truly religious are.

They can get married for all I care so long as it doesn't encroach the rights off the church or mosque or whatever entity wouldn't normally condone it. Plus it's just a state marriage license that means nothing to the religious or would even be recognized by their respective gods.

After the legalization though homosexuals seem far less irritating and flamboyant in general because it's not a thing to be gay anymore. They get to be just as fucked as everyone else while simultaneously having been used by the powers that be to further agendas that aren't about their 'rights'.

 

[India]

Nope, but it had to be done. We are getting closer to the end times and it is what had to happen. At the end, the entire world will be corrupt and living in sin. By making gay marriage legal, it supports the gay community and helps normalize it. Eventually it will become so normalized and religion will be wiped out of the picture because that is what the Elite want and that is what needs to be done because the end times are here.

 

[Kung Fu]

Was homosexual "marriage" a good idea?

I don't know why homosexuals have to call it a marriage when through out history it was meant to be referred to as a union between a female and male. Why don't they call it a partnership instead? These homosexuals always want to be like straight people but they can't because they're not straight.

Also, them wanting to be married in a church or a mosque is absolutely ridiculous. Any mosque, church, and or any other religious institution that gives in and grants them marriage fails to be a religious institution.

 

[Serveto]

The subject is complex. As I see it, to the extent that the secular State involved itself in what was historically an indossoluble* "sacrament" of the Church, marriage, though still often performed in churches, was somewhat stripped of its sacramental nature and became simply a legal contract, administered by State lawyers, with divorce increasingly less stigmatized. It was only a matter of time before the secular State decided that marriage contracts, like other contracts, could not be "discriminatory." It remains to be seen how the State might yet redefine the institution (and perhaps recognize polygamy, etc.). So, it seems, gay marriage is the result of either an evolution or devolution in secular law, unhinged from the Church (and its canon law).

I remember having read a comment by a famous French courtesan, who, during the fiercely anti-Catholic French Revolution, when the then newly emerging republican State was not only taking control of marriage but also of education, reins of government, etc., referred to then recently established "civil" marriage, or maybe its correlative, divorce, as the "sacrament of adultery." Her sarcasm, at the time, was sharp and biting, but I think it has lost much of its sting in this, our era.

The so called "separation" of Church and State can sometimes be radical, more like an absolute rupture. While there are those who say "freedom of religion," there are also those, increasingly powerful, who not only say but also enact "freedom from religion," and some of those people, dressed in black robes, sit on the US Supreme Court.
___________________
* except in cases of "annulments," which could often be purchased, for a price

 

[Damien50]

I don't know why homosexuals have to call it a marriage when through out history it was meant to be referred to as a union between a female and male. Why don't they call it a partnership instead? These homosexuals always want to be like straight people but they can't because they're not straight.

Also, them wanting to be married in a church or a mosque is absolutely ridiculous. Any mosque, church, and or any other religious institution that gives in and grants them marriage fails to be a religious institution.

Spoiler: Marriage definition

Definition of marriage

1. 1a see usage paragraph below : the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by lawb : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlockc : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
   
   
2. 2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
   
   
3. 3: an intimate or close unionthe marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross
   

Usage of marriage
The definition of the word marriage—or, more accurately, the understanding of what the institution of marriage properly consists of—continues to be highly controversial. This is not an issue to be resolved by dictionaries. Ultimately, the controversy involves cultural traditions, religious beliefs, legal rulings, and ideas about fairness and basic human rights. The principal point of dispute has to do with marriage between two people of the same sex, often referred to as same-sex marriage or gay marriage. Same-sex marriages are now recognized by law in a growing number of countries and were legally validated throughout the U.S. by the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. In many other parts of the world, marriage continues to be allowed only between men and women. The definition of marriage shown here is intentionally broad enough to encompass the different types of marriage that are currently recognized in varying cultures, places, religions, and systems of law.

Words are so dynamic and the PC culture so prevalent that Merriam Webster essentially has a disclaimer so as to not offend anyone and gave legal judgement. It's amazing that we are able to redefine, change spelling, and otherwise massacre the English language for Big Brother.

I'm pretty sure the original meaning wasn't this in the 14th century but now it is.

@Etagloc

Do you believe there to be a conspiracy in the medical world in that since the 70's medical professionals have refused to classify the LGBT crowd with psychiatric or medical diagnosis that could sway public perception to the idea that there is something wrong with these individuals?

Then in 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. These scenes were repeated in 1971, and as people came out of the “closet” and felt empowered politically and socially, the APA directorate became increasingly uncomfortable with their stance. In 1973 the APA’s nomenclature task force recommended that homosexuality be declared normal. The trustees were not prepared to go that far, but they did vote to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses by a vote of 13 to 0, with 2 abstentions. This decision was confirmed by a vote of the APA membership, and homosexuality was no longer listed in the seventh edition of DSM-II, which was issued in 1974.

What’s noteworthy about this is that the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not triggered by some scientific breakthrough. There was no new fact or set of facts that stimulated this major change. Rather, it was the simple reality that gay people started to kick up a fuss. They gained a voice and began to make themselves heard. And the APA reacted with truly astonishing speed. And with good reason. They realized intuitively that a protracted battle would have drawn increasing attention to the spurious nature of their entire taxonomy. So they quickly “cut loose” the gay community and forestalled any radical scrutiny of the DSM system generally.

The APA claimed that they made the change because new research showed that most homosexual people were content with their sexual orientation, and that as a group, they appeared to be as well-adjusted as heterosexual people.

http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

 

[Damien50]

The subject is complex. As I see it, to the extent that the secular State involved itself in what was historically an indossoluble* "sacrament" of the Church, marriage, though still often performed in churches, was somewhat stripped of its sacramental nature and became simply a legal contract, administered by State lawyers, with divorce increasingly less stigmatized. It was only a matter of time before the secular State decided that marriage contracts, like other contracts, could not be "discriminatory." It remains to be seen how the State might yet redefine the institution (and perhaps recognize polygamy, etc.). So, it seems, gay marriage is the result of either an evolution or devolution in secular law, unhinged from the Church (and its canon law).

I remember having read a comment by a famous French courtesan, who, during the fiercely anti-Catholic French Revolution, when the then newly emerging republican State was not only taking control of marriage but also of education, reins of government, etc., referred to then recently established "civil" marriage, or maybe its correlative, divorce, as the "sacrament of adultery." Her sarcasm, at the time, was sharp and biting, but I think it has lost much of its sting in this, our era.

The so called "separation" of Church and State can sometimes be radical, more like an absolute rupture. While there are those who say "freedom of religion," there are also those, increasingly powerful, who not only say but also enact "freedom from religion," and some of those sit on the US Supreme Court.
___________________
* except in cases of "annulments," which could often be purchased, for a price

Oddly enough, polygamy is more widely accepted religiously than these civil unions of the state. Marriage has been diluted to the extent that some stays consider you married if in a relationship for several years and many finding this 'contract' completely useless.

Look at cointelpro and the welfare state. It did considerable damage to the blacks by merely breaking up the nuclear familial system. Men and women alike were devalued in this process and the marriage taking the biggest hit all for some covenant cheese and easy money.

 

[Etagloc]

@Etagloc

Do you believe there to be a conspiracy in the medical world in that since the 70's medical professionals have refused to classify the LGBT crowd with psychiatric or medical diagnosis that could sway public perception to the idea that there is something wrong with these individuals?


http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

I don't think I'd use the word conspiracy but yes. Those people are crooked.

 

[justjess]

Marriage existed way before judeo Christian religion - religion doesn't own the idea.

 

[Serveto]

Oddly enough, polygamy is more widely accepted religiously than these civil unions of the state. Marriage has been diluted to the extent that some stays consider you married if in a relationship for several years and many finding this 'contract' completely useless.

Look at cointelpro and the welfare state. It did considerable damage to the blacks by merely breaking up the nuclear familial system. Men and women alike were devalued in this process and the marriage taking the biggest hit all for some covenant cheese and easy money.

Destruction or "abolition" of the family was (and is) also a stated goal of Marxists, who, especially in the form of "Cultural Marxists," are with us still. With that said, many supporters of gay marriage will argue that, far from attempting to either destroy or abolish the family, they are merely redefining it, to be more "inclusive." The subject is complex.

 

[Damien50]

Marriage existed way before judeo Christian religion - religion doesn't own the idea.

I don't think one needs to examine religion to know the original intent though.

 

[Damien50]

Destruction, or "abolition," of the family was (and is) also a stated goal of the Marxists, who, especially in the form of "Cultural Marxists" are with us still. With that said, many supporters of gay marriage will argue that, far from attempting to destroy, or abolish, the family, they are merely redefining it, to be more "inclusive." The subject is complex.

I'd say George Orwell was a master of redefining.

It becomes complex when we leave 1+1=2 for some bastardized common core variant because everyone gets their own 'answers'.

 

[justjess]

The original intent was economic. Protection of property and inheritance rights

 

[Damien50]

The original intent was economic. Protection of property and inheritance rights

Yet still sexual and generally man/women in nature?

 

[Serveto]

It becomes complex when we leave 1+1=2 for some bastardized common core variant because everyone gets their own 'answers'.

Consider if we were to return to the marriage laws and practices of the Old Testament. In many of those cases, especially those of the so called patriarchs and their multiple wives (and concubines), the equation was not quite so simple, even if it did exclude gay marriage.

 

[Kung Fu]

Marriage existed way before judeo Christian religion - religion doesn't own the idea.

But the idea of a marriage has always been between a man and woman and I would doubt there were any cases of marriages happening between two people of the same sex while it being sanctioned by any kind of religious institutions prior to the Abrahamic faiths. I would be genuily curious if you could find one that dates back to before the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Damien50]

Well, consider if we were to return to the marriage laws and practices of the Old Testament. In many of those cases, especially those of the so called patriarchs and their multiple wives (and concubines), the equation was not quite so simple, even if it did exclude gay marriage.

Agreed. Not generally an ideal situation with constant repercussions but in that same vein of Old Testament practices God had only given Adam one woman. I'm not and wouldn't even really argue this from a religious stance. History makes it more apparent than I could.

 

[mur]

The original intent was economic. Protection of property and inheritance rights

that's why i support marriage. even with homosexuals.
http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/divorce/10-nasty-celebrity-divorces/
(btw, the name of that link is super gross, i know. but is an example)
they're some famous and nasty divorces were people lost almost everything. for me is surreal that the person you choose to care is evil enough to try to get you to be homeless /:

but hey, some other people get married only FOR money or "appearence" and sometimes they have other partners.

 

[Kung Fu]

Consider if we were to return to the marriage laws and practices of the Old Testament. In many of those cases, especially those of the so called patriarchs and their multiple wives (and concubines), the equation was not quite so simple, even if it did exclude gay marriage.

Do the practices of the OT give exact amounts in terms of inheritance and other financial matters? The Quran gives clear outlines in who gets what and in what amount.

 

[Serveto]

Do the practices of the OT give exact amounts in terms of inheritance and other financial matters?

I don't know. I think, given that (normative, rabbinic) Judaism is, much like Islam in this respect, a system of established jurisprudence, that is to say, an organized system of law, one could probably find exact, clearly defined Jewish marriage laws, based in various degrees upon interpretations of the Old Testament, within the Talmudic tradition.