Alan Keyes, the only true conservative in the race

[Bulldog]

Did you then, or do you now, believe that the religious ceremonial of your marriage has any legitimacy and validity other than conforming to a tradition --- "that's how Jews get married" --- or to the wish of your wife --- "she'd have hated a civil ceremony"? I do not know the Jewish marriage ritual, but in the Christian Orthodox one the priest repeats three times for each part "The servant of God John Doe marries the servant of God Jane Doe, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, Amen!". Now, if someone who denies that there is such thing as a God Who is simultaneously Father and Son and Holy Ghost submits himself to this ritual, how would you qualify his attitude, other than acting against his conscience?

You need to lighten up.  When people want to get married, they do what's necessary to have a joyous wedding.  Conscience isn't a factor - getting married is the goal.  Put another way, my wife is much more important to me than any religious views - religion doesn't count for anything in my life. 

You keep calling this act a religious marriage - I just consider it getting married by a Rabbi in a temple.  Whatever it takes to get the job done.

[Florestan]

Florestan -

I do appreciate you discussing your POV.  

I reciprocate (is this a word? ) wholeheartedly, Adam.

Marriage in ye olde days was rarely about love.  Arranged marriages were the norm - espeically among the upper classes - and that was more about the dowry than anything else.  It sure wasn't bc these two young kids made such an adorable couple together,  So, materialism was always an element of marriage.  

That is true. But are we discussing the marriage customs of the upper-classes of yore, or a contemporary issue concerning mostly ordinary, middle-class people? What is, or should be, in your opinion, the main point of a religious marriage today --- money or love?

And scarpia's points re: legal rights reserved for the married as opposed to cililly unioned are valid.  As it currently stands, there are plenty of states where even visitation rights are limited and restricted.  There are only a handful of ways to resolve this major issue, and marriage is among them.

Since I could not express my views on this issue directly to Scarpia, I thank you for presenting me with the opportunity of doing it now. I will try to be as clear and logical as possible. If I fail and make obscure points, please ask for more explicitness.

I apologize for having to begin with a repeat of what I said before: religious marriage, if undertaken honestly and in full agreement with one's own conscience, is strictly reserved for religious people. An atheist who marries religiously, no matter how reasonable his motives, acts nevertheless against his own convictions and conscience. It seems to me that this is plain common-sense.

Another repeat: the purpose and rituals of the religious marriage have been defined long ago and form part and parcel of the tradition, kept as such for almost two thousands years. Contrary to Scarpia's claim, no major Christian denomination has officially changed a iota of the essential heterosexual nature of the religious marriage.

Now, in a contemporary state we encounter heterosexuals who are married religiously only, religiously and civil, or only civil. (I don't know the situation in US, but in Romania one cannot marry religiously if s/he did not marry civil previously, a fact which I regard as a gross intrusion of the state in the conscience of people; as far as I know, in Greece there is no civil marriage at all --- the legal practices of countries differ greatly in this respect and this is a source of much misunderstandings and misfortunes; but then again, each country tries to protect its own traditions and heritage... whatever). One encounters Christians of myriads denominations, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists etc.

The fundamental question in my opinion is: should the state institute this or that religion as an official religion? If the answer is yes, then it's obvious that only the practices of that religion will have legal effects, and rights will be granted to the sincere or hypocrite adherents to that religion which the sincere or hypocrite adherents to other religions, or atheists, will be denied. If the answer is no, then no practice of any religion whatsoever should have legal effects; the same rights must be granted to all citizens, regardless of their religious faith or lack thereof. Therefore, in a state completely separated of the Church, only civil marriages, as free contracts between consenting adult citizens, should enjoy the economical / fiscal advantages which today are enjoyed only by religiously married people.

The present state of affiars in US, as exposed by Scarpia, amounts to discrimination against people who are not married religiously but nevertheless have committed relationships. But, and here I repeat myself again, state cannot force any Church to adopt same-sex marriages. The solution, in my opinion, is the one presented above: the complete separation of Church and State.

Now, it's not for me to decide, of course, but for the people of the US. And we come here to the very complicated issue of majority rule.

Does my theory makes any sense to you?

Re; gay pride parades, would you consider Rudy Giulliani or Hillary Clinton among those "anyone"s who you oppose?  Becasue they have marched.  As have numerous other public figures.  So what?  It's a party.  There are a majority of marchers who are simply representing - they're not dancing on top of a float in nothing but a spangly bikini with a puerto rican flag motif.  (and w=so what if there are?)  They're having fun, only celebrating that they don't have to live in the closet anymore, and still giving public voice to that their struggle for full rights and tolerance be understood.

(At the same rate, would you be the St. patty's day parade?  halloween?  Macy;s Thanksgiving day Parade?) Becasue, lets face it, you DO get a handful of idiots in those crowds too...

There is no human group, be it constituted along religious, scientific, artistic, sport, you name it, lines, which does not comprise a good percentage of idiots --- exactly the same percentage of idiots that can be found in the society as a whole.

But I ask you: do the St. Patrick, or Hallloween, or Thanksgiving Day parades, show the same amount of sexual exhibitionism? Do you enounter in them the type of sick debauchery portrayed in Josquin's link, that made decent homosexuals here express their horror? Do they offend decency and common-sense in the same degree?

I would not mind at all a march of decent homosexuals, manifesting in a civil manner for the separation between State and Church. But no one will ever convince me that I must stand, nay, understand and tolerate, the display of the most disgusting, pervert and sick --- I can't help but repeat again --- sexual behaviour and that, moreover, it is a sign of civilization.

To quote someone for whose doctrines and teachings I have no sympathy whatsoever, but whose living to the standards of his own conscience I deeply admire: Here I stand; I can do no otherwise. God help me. Amen! --- Luther's Speech at the Diet of Worms (1521)

[Florestan]

Whatever it takes to get the job done.

Well, as I said before, I am of the old school. I believe that one can deceive oneself or other people. I believe that one can find a myriad ways to get the job done. But I also believe that one cannot deceive God and one cannot deceive one's own conscience, provided one is aware of it, of course.

That being said, may I ask for how long have you been married? I sincerely wish you the same amount from now on! Much more so, since I will celebrate my civil marriage this Saturday!  0:)

[mozartsneighbor]

I apologize for having to begin with a repeat of what I said before: religious marriage, if undertaken honestly and in full agreement with one's own conscience, is strictly reserved for religious people. An atheist who marries religiously, no matter how reasonable his motives, acts nevertheless against his own convictions and conscience. It seems to me that this is plain common-sense.

Another repeat: the purpose and rituals of the religious marriage have been defined long ago and form part and parcel of the tradition, kept as such for almost two thousands years. Contrary to Scarpia's claim, no major Christian denomination has officially changed a iota of the essential heterosexual nature of the religious marriage.

Marriage did not have a religious or sacramental dimension until quite recently, unlike what you have repeatedly claimed. For the greater part of its history as an institution marriage has not had any religious content or interference -- therefore there is no reason why it should be an exclusive preserve of religious heterosexuals.

"No specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage among the Greeks and Romans; only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.
From the early Christian era, marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Prior to 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties. The couple would promise verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the "verbum." If made in the present tense (e.g., "I marry you"), it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense ("I will marry you"), it would constitute a betrothal. But if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage. One of the functions of churches from the Middle Ages was to register marriages, which was not obligatory.
It was only after the Council of Trent in 1545, as part of the Counter-Reformation, that a Roman Catholic marriage would be recognized only if the marriage ceremony was officiated by a priest with two witnesses." (Wikipedia)

[Bulldog]

That being said, may I ask for how long have you been married? I sincerely wish you the same amount from now on! Much more so, since I will celebrate my civil marriage this Saturday!  0:)

Got married in 1969 - will be 40 years next June.  Congrats on your impending marriage!

[scarpia]

Contrary to Scarpia's claim, no major Christian denomination has officially changed a iota of the essential heterosexual nature of the religious marriage.

In the first place, I did not say same sex marriage is recognized by some Christians, I said by some religions.  You should consider that there are religions outside of Christianity.  In the second place, the Episcopal church is officially supporting same-sex marriage in the state of California.  

The present state of affiars in US, as exposed by Scarpia, amounts to discrimination against people who are not married religiously but nevertheless have committed relationships. But, and here I repeat myself again, state cannot force any Church to adopt same-sex marriages. The solution, in my opinion, is the one presented above: the complete separation of Church and State.

No one in the US is advocating the idea that a religious institution should be required sanctify same-sex marriage.  Currently a religious group can sanctify a marriage between a man and a desk lamp if it wants, or not.  Nor is religious recognition required for a marriage to be valid throughout the US.  Marriages are defined by the individual states.  The issue is whether a same-sex marriage registered in one state must be recognized in other states and by the federal government.

[Florestan]

Mozartsneighbour, if you quote Wikipedia at least have the honesty to quote it in full. The excerpts you posted feature the expression "citation needed" at the end of practically every sentence. You might want to find more reliable and informed sources than Wiki.

[Florestan]

Marriages are defined by the individual states.  The issue is whether a same-sex marriage registered in one state must be recognized in other states and by the federal government.

Then what have I got to do with it? Again, it's a political, not a religious, matter.

[Wanderer]

as far as I know, in Greece there is no civil marriage at all

The civil marriage is instituted in Greece, but it is not compulsory. Either type, religious or civil, is equally valid from a legal viewpoint. Very few choose to marry in this fashion, however, and most of those do it not out of conviction but as a preamble -  in order to be entitled to the legal benefits of marriage (e.g. fiscal benefits or better terms in taking a bank loan) - before their already planned wedding in the church (which requires many preparations and it's quite expensive).

[mozartsneighbor]

Mozartsneighbour, if you quote Wikipedia at least have the honesty to quote it in full. The excerpts you posted feature the expression "citation needed" at the end of practically every sentence. You might want to find more reliable and informed sources than Wiki.

I quoted from Wiki because I don't have much time, and it is true Wiki is not always 100% reliable, particularly when there are no citations -- however, that article reiterates what I already read years ago in several scholarly articles when I was finishing my history degree and had to write a long paper on marriage in Medieval Europe in the context of the "Arnolfini Portrait" by the painter Jan van Eyck. Those same points were elaborated in a more complex form in numerous articles that dealt with that subject. So, it's not just Wiki.
I have no idea where I have that paper right now since I moved several times around the world since and have many things in storage in different places. But I will see if I can find at least 1 or 2 articles that I remember, not sure they will be accessible on the net, being scholarly articles.
You, on the other hand, have offered 0 back up for numerous blanket pronouncements you have made on marriage always being a religious institution, etc.
Also, as a history graduate I have to say your grasp on history is a bit simplistic. The way you launched into wild theorizing on aspects of the history of gay identity and tolerance in European history was quite amusing, when to anyone who has read a bit on the subject it is obvious you have not read much or perhaps nothing at all on the subject. If you want to learn something you might pick up Crompton's "Homosexuality and Civilization", which is a very scholarly and engaging book.
As regards your connecting tolerance with the "good old days" and going on to do wild extrapolations on the nature of modernity and fascism, and so on, and so on -- I really don't have the time now to address the numerous misconceptions there. Maybe I will get to it during the weekend.

On a totally different note: have you guys noticed the odd ads coming up on this page? The latest I have noticed is: "Find your perfect Ukrainian bride -- odessadarlings.com" with a picture of a busty slavic blonde.
I have to say, I was shocked by this proof of the indecency of certain heterosexuals. Particularly in abusing the "sacred" institution of marriage in this way. But like Florestan was grudgingly able to concede that maybe that example of public sex does not bring into question the decency of most homosexuals, I am willing to admit that perhaps this ad does not bring into question the decency of most heterosexuals.

[Florestan]

I will see if I can find at least 1 or 2 articles that I remember, not sure they will be accessible on the net, being scholarly articles.

Please do. I am interested in reading them.

The way you launched into wild theorizing on aspects of the history of gay identity and tolerance in European history was quite amusing

Quite amusing indeed is how you interpret my personal views on some broad historical trends as wild theorizing about gay identity. I have no interest whatsoever in this subject.

I really don't have the time now to address the numerous misconceptions there. Maybe I will get to it during the weekend.

Feel free to do it anytime. I'm always open to discussions on the matter.

Florestan was grudgingly able to concede that maybe that example of public sex does not bring into question the decency of most homosexuals

Grudgingly and maybe, huh? I stated twice, in no ambiguous words, that I do not consider "gay parades" as representative for decent homosexuals. The grudge and the probability is in the eye of the reader, I'm afraid.

[adamdavid80]

On a totally different note: have you guys noticed the odd ads coming up on this page? The latest I have noticed is: "Find your perfect Ukrainian bride -- odessadarlings.com" with a picture of a busty slavic blonde.
I have to say, I was shocked by this proof of the indecency of certain heterosexuals. Particularly in abusing the "sacred" institution of marriage in this way. But like Florestan was grudgingly able to concede that maybe that example of public sex does not bring into question the decency of most homosexuals, I am willing to admit that perhaps this ad does not bring into question the decency of most heterosexuals.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

cute!