marriage rights to homosexuals,

[SwanSpirit]

( or sometimes history helps)



IN the CHRISTIAN church ( which was the Catholic church ) until almost medieval times .... when the church



gradually took OVER the POWER to "sanctify " unions . Prior tho this time they were strictly secular matters , and marriages were occassionally blessed by the church but were mostly subject to the laws of the land, and traditions of the culture.



The reasons for the intrusrion of the church into marital matters was based on the distribution of property and the introduction of the rule of PRIMOGENITURE which is that the ELDEST SON INHERITS EVERYTHING .... and the primogeniture was introduced to prevent the breakup of giant landholdings and bases of power that had been accumulated by powerful nobles.



IN the process women and younger sons were disinherited of their rightful property ... women were forced into marriages to preserve property if they were the only heirs.. and young men who were not the eldest had to either join a crusade to aquire enough wealth to marry .. or were also forced into the clergy by families who wished to have power bases in the church itself.



Concubinage was common among priests who had been forced to take vows of "chastity" they never intended to fulfill, and the marriage laws were maipulated and flouted to marry a long time concubine or get rid of one wife and take another .



INCEST LAWS specific to marriage ( many cultures have taboos) were also created by the church once they had acquired power over marrigaes; to allow some alliances of families and and disallow others .Dispensations from these third cousin twice removed incest taboos could be purchased from the church with the right amount of power influence and money .



This was part of the reason the King Henry the VIII thought he could anull his marriage to his first wife , it wasnt unusual or different to do so , based on reasons of "incest" or other manufactured reasons for ending marriages .But the Catholic church used the instituion of marraige as an exercise of POWER over him and he rebelled. That was the issue .... and still is POWER.





I totally agree that anyone can enter into a legal agreement with anyone else ,and condemnation by anyone calling themsleves "religious " is to me a total hypocrisy ..



Also many of the marriage laws in the USA were created to prevent women and children being used as property , which they once were , so the we are dealing with attitudes and laws that were prevalent for another century . OH JOY......<---sarcasm





Love and HUGS

Swannie



An EXCELLENT BOOK on marriage and the church is the THE KNIGHT THE LADY AND THE PRIEST or the Making of Modern Marriage in Medieval France by George Duby (debunks a lot of myths about marriage )

[DreamTone7]

Methinks Swannie has not read her Bible(!!!)



The concept of "marriage" has existed long before any of Swannie's examples...or any of the books she mentions. I think Swannie has, once again, made a connection between "religious beliefs" and "the church" where one does not exist.



You don't have to be a member of "a man-made organization" to be a member of "the church". "The church", as usually referred to in the Bible, consists of all the members of Gods Kingdom....not a man-made organization. Indeed, marriages have always been "in the sight of God", while not necessarilly being in the sight of a man-made organization. BUT, wherever these man-made organizations purport to be a collection of the members of Gods Kingdom, there will be a desire to see Gods will regarding marriage fulfilled. God ordains marriages....not any man-made organization. This is why any man-made organization that IS a collection of the members of Gods Kingdom will not recognize any same-sex marriages. Period. But they will desire to involve other members of the Kingdom in their marriage.



Do man-made organizations fail to fulfill Gods will in matters? You bet they do. But the members of Gods Kingdom are those who recognize this, and will not go along with it when it comes to pass.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Indeed, marriages have always been "in the sight of God", while not necessarilly being in the sight of a man-made organization

---

To the Vikings it must have been in the sight of the Gods (in that particular case Frej and Freja), the Vikings didn't know about the Bible until the missionaries who preceeded Ansgar decided to show up and become martyrs.



Marriage was a practical institution to sort an otherwise complex social problem out and to make sure the blood bred on (this before any Christian God had commanded them to do anything of the sort?).



What about Animals? Did God tell Foxes to live in monogamy marriage-style, or could it be a social behaviour fitting for that very specific mammal?



-------------------------------------



You see, to take this discussion on objectively, we must regard all religions, past or contemporary, as equally valid.

[DreamTone7]

Galmin - "You see, to take this discussion on objectively, we must regard all religions, past or contemporary, as equally valid."



Not in America. If you read the memoirs of the founding fathers (especially Jefferson, who was, for the most part, the author of the Constitution) and read the Constitution itself as well, you'll find that this is a decidedly Christian nation.....not Islamic, not Budhist, etc., etc. Each is free in this country to practice whatever religion/beliefs that they choose...but make no mistake about it, "In God We Trust" does not refer to any other God than the God of Abraham. Therefore, the "marriage" we are discussing is a Christian one.

[SwanSpirit]

I think the emphasis on IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH clears up the biblical matter .....

because the Christians USE the "olde testament " doesnt convert the ancient tribal marriage customs of hebrews to christian ...

and the BEGATS .... arent exactly clear on what ceremony or ceremonies took place ...

and the SONG OF SOLOMON doesnt mention marriage either ....

I was talking about the CHRISTIAN church and its most peculiar customs only broadened to include marriage MUCH later....

its history and you can research it ... and its amazing how many people mistake the bible for the history of the church .....





Love and light

Swannie

[DreamTone7]

Part of the problem, I think, is that the "church" as referred to by some is not the same "church" as referred to by others. Different meanings...one referring to a man-made organization...the other to what Christians refer to as the body of Christ.



To help clarify, what exactly do you mean when you say "the Christian Church"?



As for the Song of Solomon, there is still debate as to its true meaning...what some may believe to be obvious is not necessarily its true intent. There are many spiritual undertones that are lost on non-Christians/Jews. Obviously there are those that agree with me...otherwise it would not have been chosen for inclusion in the Bible from the Dead-Sea Scrolls. It was Solomon, after all, who wrote most of what we find in the book of Proverbs (a good read, by the way).



It seems to me, though, that the eventual inclusion of God (though not necessarily any organization) into a marriage cerimony would be a natural progression of Christianity. As has been pointed out, Christ does not lay out many cerimonies in the New Testament.

Edited by: DreamTone7  at: 8/24/03 7:58 pm

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Galmin - "You see, to take this discussion on objectively, we must regard all religions, past or contemporary, as equally valid."



Not in America

---

Be careful where you tread.

It seems the First Amendment of the US Constitution has completely escaped you.

Quote:

---

If you read the memoirs of the founding fathers (especially Jefferson, who was, for the most part, the author of the Constitution) and read the Constitution itself as well, you'll find that this is a decidedly Christian nation.....not Islamic, not Budhist, etc., etc. Each is free in this country to practice whatever religion/beliefs that they choose...

but make no mistake about it, "In God We Trust" does not refer to any other God than the God of Abraham.

---

If you are refering to the founding fathers of the United States,

then you must mean "E Pluribus Unum"

(wich, as far as my Latin goes, means something like "One from Many Parts").

Quote:

---

Therefore, the "marriage" we are discussing is a Christian one.

---

"In God We Trust" was added much later at a time when the founding fathers were all dead and gone.

Ergo: your argument is moot.





I believe what we have here is a discussion based on misunderstandings.

[DreamTone7]

Galmin - "It seems the First Amendment of the US Constitution has completely escaped you."



I suggest you look at it again. "Religion" is a man-made organization. See my previous posts.



Galmin - ""In God We Trust" was added much later at a time when the founding fathers were all dead and gone.

Ergo: your argument is moot."



Not at all.....though you do help make my point for me since the addition was at all made. I simply say that it started with the founding fathers....and as you have clearly indicated, remains true.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

I suggest you look at it again. "Religion" is a man-made organization. See my previous posts.

---

I saw them, previously.



The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, requires that a wall of separation be maintained between the government and religion (between church and state). Thus:



1, individuals will have freedom of religious expression;



2, the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith;



3, the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa.



To claim that there is something above the US Constitution (the words of God, Oden, Shiva etc) that makes the country a one way rectified Christian nation is just that: religion!!

Quote:

---

Not at all.....though you do help make my point for me since the addition was at all made.

---

The founding fathers decided on the motto:"E Pluribus Unum". Period.

[DreamTone7]

The only thing I disagree with in your last post is your implied definition of "church" and "faith". For "church", again, see my previous posts. "Faith" as it is used, is merely a denominational determinant...denominations, that is, of, once again, a "church". There is no mention of a boundry between God and State....indeed, as I have (and you have) pointed out previously, God (as in the God of Abraham) is woven into the very fabric of this country, its culture, and its Constitution...as intended by the founding fathers. In George Washingtons memoirs, he writes (not a direct quote as I'm citing from memory): "Unless the people of this great nation adhere to God-fearing morals, this system of government will certainly fail."



I love it when foreigners try and tell me about my country!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

as I have pointed out previously, God (as in the God of Abraham) is woven into the very fabric of this country, its culture, and its Constitution....as intended by the founding fathers.

---

Why not as in the God of Thunder?





Take a peek at this courtruling:

"The First Amendment's purpose was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion." " U.S. Supreme Court, Reynolds v. United States (1879)



Isn't that odd?

Quote:

---

I love it when foreigners try and tell me about my country!

---

Beware, you might learn something.

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Part of the problem, I think, is that the "church" as referred to by some is not the same "church" as referred to by others. Different meanings...one referring to a man-made organization...the other to what Christians refer to as the body of Christ.

---

And some think of it as a house on a hill with a bell. This is all intrigueing and your attempt to diversify between "man made organizations" in one corner and "the body of Christ" in the other has not passed unnoticed.



I hope you realize, however, that "Church=the body of Christ" is a religious statement.

Quote:

---

To help clarify, what exactly do you mean when you say "the Christian Church"?



As for the Song of Solomon, there is still debate as to its true meaning...what some may believe to be obvious is not necessarily its true intent.

---

Can you tell me what a correct (IYO) denomination of "the Christian Church" has to do with the US Constitution and the topic of same sex marriages?



Please do so without using "the Christian Church" as a bat.

Edited by: Galmin  at: 8/26/03 12:46 pm

[DreamTone7]

Galmin - "I hope you realize, however, that "Church=the body of Christ" is a religious statement."



Actually, it's a biblical/historical statement. In the original Greek version of the Bible (New Testament), Christ refers to "The Kingdom of God" approximately 250 times. The word "church" is only used a few times. "The Kingdom of God" refers (again, biblically) to all the followers of Christ. During the 16th century (not 100% sure on the time-frame), the Church of England had the Bible "translated" in such a fashion as to have the phrase "Kingdom of God" replaced by the word "church" so that each, now, shows up about 125 times. Go figure.



In response to your second statement, I have never referred to any one denomination as being correct. Indeed, this is at the very heart of the intent of the seperation of church and state....so that the state never favors one particular denomination over the others. However, as I have stated, God is indeed a very big part of our Constitution.....and God is quite clear on how he views the homosexual act (not always the people.....though his judgement on Sodom was, well, of Biblical proportion).

[Galmin]

22 days to ponder and this is your response?

Quote:

---

Actually, it's a biblical/historical statement

---

.

Hmmmm. Bible..... Bible. Isn't that a bestseller used in a religous capacity?



Anyway, now we have:

1, Church (a man-made organization)

2, The body of Christ (Church, though very different from 1 since it's not man made)

and the most recent contribution:

3, The Kingdom of God (all the followers of Christ, [who may or may not belong to 1 or 2?])



Should I refrain from pursuing this topic from fear of more additions?

-----------------------------------

Quote:

---

In response to your second statement, I have never referred to any one denomination as being correct. Indeed, this is at the very heart of the intent of the seperation of church and state....so that the state never favors one particular denomination over the others.

---

This all make perfect sense, so why go on with:

Quote:

---

However, as I have stated, God is indeed a very big part of our Constitution.....and God is quite clear on how he views the homosexual act (not always the people.....though his judgement on Sodom was, well, of Biblical proportion).

---

?

[DreamTone7]

Yep....#2 and #3 are the same thing. (Didn't my explanation of "church" make that clear? If not, I apologize.)



...and the reason I went on with the second part is in direct response to your:



"Can you tell me what a correct (IYO) denomination of "the Christian Church" has to do with the US Constitution and the topic of same sex marriages?"



God and his "Kingdom" are very much a part of the issue...while a man-made organization (denomination) is not. You don't have to be a member of a man-made organization to read the Bible and understand it.