SCOTUS decides on Prop 8 :D

**Ranger10** · 03-28-13, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

How about the sumerian and mesopotamian laws of marriage that existed over 5000 years ago? Those would be the first written records other than christian. Sumerian families were husband, wife, children.... Divorces were accepted... Ancience Jewish marriages (2500 years ago is the oldest known marriage contract) were lists of legal obligations... The writings of Plato define marriage as a union of the practical and the pleasant. He urged young men to find a partner based on the interests of the city or state and not based on love or other desires. Marriage was a real thing in pre-christian Greece obviously.

You are deluding yourself if you think that marriage wasn't around before christianity or in alongside it in other cultures.

Where did I say Christianity created them? The Jewish people were around loooong before any Christian faith. Yet... we use the same Bible. They were around during Sumerian, and the Mesopotamian cultures.

And those unions were understood as monogamous relationships. It wasn't until 1250-1300ad from the middle English word "Mariage". And I'm pretty sure there were some Biblical faiths around then which you would recognize today.

Marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Captain Coors** · 03-28-13, 01:59 PM

Well I'm agnostic so was I not supposed to not get "married" because I'm not religous? Confused.

**Ranger10** · 03-28-13, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

Well I'm agnostic so was I not supposed to not get "married" because I'm not religous? Confused.

My view is that we should ALL be considered in civil unions in the eyes of the state for the purposes of taxation, civil liberties, and keeping Church and State separate.

"Marriage" is a religious institution. Leave it there.

**Captain Coors** · 03-28-13, 02:12 PM

That is reasonable, but then everyone will get civially unioned for the government, and have to go married at their own church. Including gay people at their gay friendly church.

So we still call it marriage for everyone anyways. I guess its semantics and workflow.

**Ranger10** · 03-28-13, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Coors

That is reasonable, but then everyone will get civially unioned for the government, and have to go married at their own church. Including gay people at their gay friendly church.

So we still call it marriage for everyone anyways. I guess its semantics and workflow.

Exactly. We're all still equal, are we not? Isn't that the goal here?

**Kanati** · 03-28-13, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

My view is that we should ALL be considered in civil unions in the eyes of the state for the purposes of taxation, civil liberties, and keeping Church and State separate.

"Marriage" is a religious institution. Leave it there.

And kleenex is a brand name but if someone asks for a kleenex you know exactly what they want. Or a xerox... band-aid, frisbee, post-it, scotch-tape, windex....

Marriage has been adopted by the world as it's definition of a civil union. And no matter how much the church wants to lay exclusivity to it's use, it CAN'T HAVE IT BACK. Simple. End of story.

**Captain Coors** · 03-28-13, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kanati8869

And kleenex is a brand name but if someone asks for a kleenex you know exactly what they want. Or a xerox... band-aid, frisbee, post-it, scotch-tape, windex....

Marriage has been adopted by the world as it's definition of a civil union. And no matter how much the church wants to lay exclusivity to it's use, it CAN'T HAVE IT BACK. Simple. End of story.

This is a very good point.

The word "aspirin" was once a registered brand name until it became generic. Same with "zipper".

**Ranger10** · 03-28-13, 02:23 PM

I see. So I propose a solution we can all live with that makes everyone equal in every way that matters... and that's still not good enough? If not, then you're ignoring the feelings and beliefs of all those hated people of faith who termed Marriage, (or Kleenex) to begin with, by saying, "thanks for the term, we'll keep it, you can keep your silly religion to yourself though."

I proved to you that the term and idea of marriage came from the people who wrote the Bible (even you admitted that when you said the first recorded marriage was from the Jews, and now assert "Well, we adopted it and you can't have it back, nanny, nanny, boo, boo)), and now you're ignoring your own argument, and going with "copyright infringement" now?

**Kanati** · 03-28-13, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Ranger10

I see. So I propose a solution we can all live with that makes everyone equal in every way that matters... and that's still not good enough? If not, then you're ignoring the feelings and beliefs of all those hated people of faith who termed Marriage, (or Kleenex) to begin with, by saying, "thanks for the term, we'll keep it, you can keep your silly religion to yourself though."

Yes.

I proved to you that the term and idea of marriage came from the people who wrote the Bible (even you admitted that when you said the first recorded marriage was from the Jews, and now assert "Well, we adopted it and you can't have it back, nanny, nanny, boo, boo)), and now you're ignoring your own argument, and going with "copyright infringement" now?

You no more proved to me that the christians created the term or idea than I did to you evidently. The SUMERIAN records date back 5000 years. I said the first recorded JEWISH marriage contract was 2500 years ago. I'd say the sumerians win on the RECORDED front.