Would they have(on the whole) sanctioned New testament marriage alone were it not for the New Testament? EDITED[/quote]
You mean would they have sanctioned marriage as one-man/one-woman for reasons independent of that union being included the New Testament? Well, it’d be a guess - I have no ability to know what the Founders would have done in this hypothetical - but I’d say, yes, because it appears to be clear that early colonial America understood the values of the civil arrangement of marriage, and I’d assume the Founders did too.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Would they have(on the whole) sanctioned New testament marriage alone were it not for the New Testament? EDITED[/quote]You mean would they have sanctioned marriage as one-man/one-woman for reasons independent of that union being included the New Testament? Well, it’d be a guess - I have no ability to know what the Founders would have done in this hypothetical - but I’d say, yes, because it appears to be clear that early colonial America understood the values of the civil arrangement of marriage, and I’d assume the Founders did too.[/quote]I know you don’t care, but I just can’t get myself to believe that you believe this. Really? This is your serious answer? That the colonies spawned from Bradford and company would have coincidentally honored New Testament marriage and family because they found it to be useful apart from their faith?
They would have rejected homosexual marriage, not because homosexuality itself is forcefully condemned in the clearest unambiguous language possible from Genesis to Revelation, but because of the practicality of it for their society? They didn’t receive Christian marriage and family as manifestly practical exactly because it was biblical? You’re standing by that?
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< Never once did I condemn interracial marriage. Not once.[/quote]He’s saying that you sound like the people who once did which is laughably false.
I know you don’t care, but I just can’t get myself to believe that you believe this. Really? This is your serious answer? That the colonies spawned from Bradford and company would have coincidentally honored New Testament marriage and family because they found it to be useful apart from their faith? [/quote]
You’re right, I don’t care, but I never said they “coincidentally” woudl honored NT marriage because they found it useful outside of the context of their faith. You made that up.
I’ve said all along that is a false choice - they didn’t enact it for one reason or the other. You asked a hypothetical - “would they have enacted it in the absence of their faith saying it was the way to go?”, and I said “yes, probably, based on the fact that they recognized civil marriages for all sorts of non-religious reasons”.
Standing by what exactly? A position I haven’t taken?
You seem hopelessly confused as to marriage as privately conceived and marriage as a publicly recognized institution. We enshrien marriage in law - in law - not “just cuz”, but because we believe it a benefit to society to do so. It’s just that simple. That’s true of every law passed.
Marriage laws - even ones that predate the republic - were done for the same reason. And the rationales for doing so included practical considerations - protection of women, property ownership/distribution, ordering of children, etc. This not new or controversial. Well, it appears to be news to you.
You seem to be under some view that we enacted - enacted into law, not just had marriages, which you can have outside of a license with the state - marriage because God told us to and we simply did so without regard to whether marriage laws made any practical sense.
That, of course, makes no sense, because the contours of marriage laws were not uniform througout the states - they differed somewhat in accordance to beliefs, local customs, local practice, and needs - e.g., at one point, marriages to women were being auctioned until more women made it to the new world.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Didn’t read, and I’m not gonna get much into this garbage, but if same sex marriage will be supported then we also must support:
Incestual marriage
Inter-generational marriage
Polygamous marriage
That is all[/quote]
lol…
This guy sounds like that bitched about people having interracial marriages. DAT SLIPPERY SLOPE![/quote]
Never once did I condemn interracial marriage. Not once.[/quote]
No but that was the case back then(1960’s) and the same argument comes up, if we allow this then we will have to allow all this other stuff.
We can draw a arbitrary line and hold it for many values but for some reason with gay marriage once we cross that line A slew of other stuff will have to be allowed which is simply not the case.
Ex. Gun laws are a perfect example of having a arbitrary line of what is allowed and what isn’t and it seems to be hold fairly well.
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< Never once did I condemn interracial marriage. Not once.[/quote]He’s saying that you sound like the people who once did which is laughably false.
[/quote]
Those same slippery slope arguments were used to try to preserve laws against miscegenation, so I’m not sure why you think his claim is “laughably false”.
[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia,
from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283,
quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)
[quote]forbes wrote:<<< Never once did I condemn interracial marriage. Not once.[/quote]He’s saying that you sound like the people who once did which is laughably false.
[/quote]
Those same slippery slope arguments were used to try to preserve laws against miscegenation, so I’m not sure why you think his claim is “laughably false”.
[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case))
[T]he State’s prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally
incompetent.
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia,
from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283,
quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage)
[/quote]
Those same slippery slope arguments were used to try to preserve laws against miscegenation, so I’m not sure why you think his claim is “laughably false”.[/quote]
It’s laughably false, because laws against miscegenation were not trying to protect the public institution of marriage per se, they were designed to preserve racial supremacy in the wake of Reconstruction.
Traditional marriage have no such motive with respect to “hetero supremacy”, and so the analogy is a bad one.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< that they recognized civil marriages for all sorts of non-religious reasons". >>>[/quote]And they would have done this even if those reasons were resoundingly condemned in scripture? Or did Christian morality provide the boundaries for their public practice? [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< The public policy of marriage - i.e., why we enshrine marriage in law - has zilch to do with religion. >>>[/quote]They embraced the views on marriage and family they did BECAUSE of religious conviction with the societal benefit being in their minds the natural effect of obedience to the law of the Christian God. I know you get this. All this semantic slight of hand is not necessary. Marriage, family and sex as a societal norm in the colonies was Christian. Why can’t you simply concede that?
[quote]optheta wrote:<<< Thank you. I was to lazy to get the quotes :P.[/quote]So Forbes was saying the same thing these people were? That’s what I was saying was laughable.
And they would have done this even if those reasons were resoundingly condemned in scripture? [/quote]
Who is taking this position?
You tell me - did the Bible provide for joint tenancy of property laws as they related to married couples? What about joint tenancy without right of survivorship, which differed slightly than ordinary joint tenancy, but was available in other jurisdictions/
Let’s keep going - what about the legal compulsion to take over a spouse’s debts as a part of marriage laws? Was that Biblically commanded? If it was, then how do you explain that not all states adopted this rule - and sometimes spouses weren’t compelled to absorb the other spouse’s debts?
It’s a function of marriage laws - and they can’t have contradicting rules and both be Blblically correct. So which is it, Tirib? Since these “boundaries” are driven by Biblical ordinance and not practical considerations, I’d love to hear why we have different rules for different places.
What about the age limits on marriage?
Well, again, it isn’t “either-or”. They embraced marriage for its practical reasons, which is precisely why…wait for it…they enacted it in law.
Marriage was already prevalent as a private, religious institution. It was enshrined in law for its social benefits - there’d be no reason to have a law otherwise. Use common sense.
You want to shoehorn in your usual revisionism that all these colonial-era laws were purely a function of a more pious electorate devotedly following the the Bible when they passed such legislation. It’s more complicated than that. People back then - as they do now - pass laws because they think such laws solve social problems. You can’t remove that context and under a revisionist history say “well, the Bible said that’s the best kind of marriage, we have to therefore pass a law saying that!”
They didn’t need to pass marriage for the sake of it - it existed, alive and well, because people got married and obsevred marriage independent of the state. The state got involved when it was determined that there was public good in encouraging and privileging marriage.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< Marriage was already prevalent as a private, religious institution. >>>[/quote]AHA!! I KNEW IT!!! Now we’re getting somewhere. =] [quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< It was enshrined in law for its social benefits - there’d be no reason to have a law otherwise. Use common sense. >>>[/quote]I’m saying that, regardless of the particular statutory minutia, and regardless of the specific orthodox theological tradition they adhered to, there was practically unanimous agreement, based on biblical principle, that a marriage and a family consisted of one man and one woman with their children, while both were alive. THAT was the basis for the law. Yes or no? OR, if they fancied they had found some other version of the interaction between the sexes and the rearing of new citizens MORE beneficial ,they would have embraced that by law in defiance of their Christian convictions? I wasn’t gonna bother, but I’m gonna pin you on this one way or another. No Christianity no law/s. Yes or no? Don’t play ignorant with me about you can’t know a hypothetical. Oh yes you can. You can’t know what what would have happened had the colonies not been OVERWHELMINGLY Christian and right wing extremist nutcase Christian by today’s standards too. That’s true, nobody can know that. BUT you DO KNOW what could NEVER have happened at the hands of the people we know were living then. They would be aghast and weep if they saw the debauched whorehouse we’ve made out of the country they left us.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< You want to shoehorn in your usual revisionism that all these colonial-era laws were purely a function of a more pious electorate devotedly following the the Bible when they passed such legislation. It’s more complicated than that. People back then - as they do now - pass laws because they think such laws solve social problems. >>>[/quote]Or prevent them. You’re not gonna seriously sit there and compare the electorate then to now? I just know you ain’t doin that. LOLOLOLOL!!![quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< You can’t remove that context and under a revisionist history say “well, the Bible said that’s the best kind of marriage, we have to therefore pass a law saying that!” >>>[/quote]No, the bible says that’s the ONLY kind of marriage and that was the societal norm then. Passing laws that reflect that was only natural. THAT is my point.[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< They didn’t need to pass marriage for the sake of it - it existed, alive and well, because people got married and observed marriage independent of the state. The state got involved when it was determined that there was public good in encouraging and privileging (CHRISTIAN) marriage.[/quote]Interpolation mine. I AGREE!!!. See there? That’s exactly what they did. They observed and ONLY observed, in in any meaningful numbers, New Testament Christian marriage because that’s what they believed. When it came time to codify civil restraints by law? What else would it have been? It was THAT family unit, manned by people who WANTED to be in it that made this country soar. She is disappearing right along with that family unit. You, and the rest of these secularists here can BLAH BLAH BLAH YADA YADA YADA me to death. THAT is the truth.
One thing we do know about those Christian principled colonists, they were cool with owning people as well. So yeah, let’s look to them for our moral compass. sheesh…
Those same slippery slope arguments were used to try to preserve laws against miscegenation, so I’m not sure why you think his claim is “laughably false”.[/quote]
It’s laughably false, because laws against miscegenation were not trying to protect the public institution of marriage per se, they were designed to preserve racial supremacy in the wake of Reconstruction.
Traditional marriage have no such motive with respect to “hetero supremacy”, and so the analogy is a bad one.[/quote]
So far all the arguments against gay marriage have implied homosexuals being inferior for both raising children and representing a model of what a family should be. The phrase hetero supremacy is therefore a perfect analogy. Nobody wants to be compared to a racist so I don’t blame you for denying the analogies, just hope you realize it one day.
So far all the arguments against gay marriage have implied homosexuals being inferior for both raising children and representing a model of what a family should be. The phrase hetero supremacy is therefore a perfect analogy. Nobody wants to be compared to a racist so I don’t blame you for denying the analogies, just hope you realize it one day.[/quote]
That’s because they are, and there is nothing controversial about that. The biological parents are indisputably the best people to raise their own child. Every other arrangement is inferior to that, definitionally. Anyone who disagrees with that is deluded.
Do you honestly believe that? That there’s no qualitative difference at all between being raised by biological parents responsible for bringing you into this world and being raised by…anyone else?
In any event, traditional marriage laws were passed without a moment’s thought about gays. No one cared about them at the time or decided enacting tradiational marriages laws would be a good way to “stick it” to gays and maintain heterosexual supremacy. The enactment of traditional marriage laws didn’ty have an ounce of invidious motives.
Good Lord. That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
Oh, and in case anyone cares - i.e., anyone was following my dialogue with Tiribulus about the history of civil and religious marriage - I won’t be continuing it. I post this because I didn’t want my silence on Tiribulus’ posts to be construed as anything but what it is - I have no interest in continuing dialogue with him. Be advised.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Oh, and in case anyone cares - i.e., anyone was following my dialogue with Tiribulus about the history of civil and religious marriage - I won’t be continuing it. I post this because I didn’t want my silence on Tiribulus’ posts to be construed as anything but what it is - I have no interest in continuing dialogue with him. Be advised.[/quote]
That is a pity,I was enjoying the bitch slapping you were delivering and was hoping you would continue the schooling.