Gay Marriage comes to Indiana?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

For example, the England and Wales Marriage Act of 1753 (the first to require the formal registration of marriage with regard to vassals of the state; in this instance the Church of England) only recognised a marriage conducted by a Church of England priest. It took a short while to legally recognise that the exemptions of the same act for Quakers and Jews actually meant they could marry according to their law. Catholic, non religious and other religious marriages were not recognised until 1836. There was no indication of gender in the 1753 Act; it simply said 'persons', The same is true of the 1836 Act.

That little curio aside, all marriages through solemnisation (vows) espoused the centuries old principle of erunt animae duae in carne una In marriage, canonical law (which was interchangeable for 'legal' until acts that began to secularised marriage such as the 1836 act) inferred that the very being or legal existence of the woman was suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of her husband. That meant a man could beat his wife and it was not recognised as assault. He could rape her and it was not recognised as rape because her rights were suspended. A bit like the assault of and rape of a slave for example (and I'm not being hyperbolic legally speaking)

Christian teaching (Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1, Ephesians 5:22, 1 Corinthians 11:3 & 7-9, 1 Corinthians 14:34, 1 Corinthians 11:3-9, Timothy 2:11-12) and the teachings from Aquinas to Luther filtered into canonical law and again, canon law on marriage was essentially the de facto law on marriage and the rights of married women until secularisation.

So yes, women were chattel. Because women, in the words of Aquinas were 'defect(ive) in the formation of the first woman, since she was formed from a bent rib, that is, rib of the breast, which is bent as it were in a contrary direction to a man. And since through this defect she is an imperfect animal, she always deceives' then their 'patronage' was overlooked by their father and their brother and then by their husband. Women were not treated as equal and independent. Marriage was the purpose by which that treatment was codified.

This is entirely true; men had absolute ownership of women as handed down by law through a marriage. That was a right, as I emphasised above. That didn't form part of the factual, literary and historical definition of marriage.

Last I checked, rights are what establish and define the institution of marriage in the first place.  Otherwise, there would be no point in the state recognizing them.  Is this a real attempt at an argument, or are you just playing a semantics game because you have no substantive logic to support your position other than "muh feels?"

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

Again, rights are the very thing that establish the entire legal marriage.  If there are no rights, there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages in the first place, and there is no need for a 'definition of marriage.'  What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of marriage and the legal rights that it entails are inseparable.  Your emphasis on semantics not only distracts from the issue at hand, but the "argument" itself falls flat on its face.

If you don't believe marriage is between two people who emotionally attracted to each other, then there's no reason to call it 'marriage' in the first place.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Do you know what marriage, in the strictest sense is? Do you know why we have it? Why do we have marriage defined as a legal act either in canon or civil law? It's not exclusively conducive to sex, which we can all do. Nor is it exclusively conducive to interpersonal sexual relationships. People can have life long relationships of value without being married. Marriage is entirely about property. It is to ensure that property is managed and inherited because that is conducive to a civil society. Marriage up until very recently in the west was exclusively about property. Yes it was about love and 'Jesus' and everything else in it's ceremonial form but strictly it was about property. Now luckily men and women today, broadly speaking are equal in law. They are equal in law when they are born, when they are children and when they get married. If that marriage is dissolved then there is a fair hearing (one should hope) concerning that dissolution. However that, as I explained wasn't always the case.

Also, it's good to hear that the amendment is going to come without the ban on civil unions.

You however have the cart leading the horse. You are suggesting that there is marriage which is not about property and then there are 'rights' which are not about marriage but may inform the nature of that marriage; i.e men having chattel rights over women and exclusive rights over the children basically during her entire lifetime. But marriage didn't come first. Women's subordination to men at all stages in her life; from her fathers dominion over her as a child and as an asset to be traded, adult males sexual dominion over her in adulthood and so on was the catalyst for establishing marriage as a contractual binding societal agreement. That is why there is marriage. Religions and customs born in cultures of exclusive patriarchy informed those cultural and religious laws that defined marriage. That is why justification in the Christian West for 'erunt animae duae in carne una'; the very words spoken in the marriage vow was intertwined in the set definition of women being subordinate in deed, mind and body to menfolk. Definitions have now changed and evolved, as has marriage but do not think for a second that marriage; an institution in civil and canon law enacted by men alone had nothing to do the subordination of women.

This is again all true. However, I think you've misunderstood me; I may have not made it entirely clear. I never said that marriage is not about property and simply about love between men and women before Jesus etc. The rights that marriage bestows upon the subjects involved are the most significant feature of the union (which I why I oppose the many arguments which insist that emotional attraction between members of the same sex is the defining reason as to why we should legalise gay marriage). However, it is important to distinguish what a right is and what the definition of marriage is (the union of one man and one woman recognised by law by which they become husband and wife). The legal property aspects of marriage fall under the rights associated and not the definition, so statements which assert notions such as "women becoming mens' property once formed part of the definition and so why can't we change it again", which is what someone I was responding to below wrote, are fallacious. I know I'm being picky about semantics but I think that it's important.

Also, calling me "not particularly bright" was entirely uncalled for.

Again, rights are the very thing that establish the entire legal marriage.  If there are no rights, there is no reason for the state to recognize marriages in the first place, and there is no need for a 'definition of marriage.'  What you don't seem to understand is that the definition of marriage and the legal rights that it entails are inseparable.  Your emphasis on semantics not only distracts from the issue at hand, but the "argument" itself falls flat on its face.

If you don't believe marriage is between two people who emotionally attracted to each other, then there's no reason to call it 'marriage' in the first place.

But you're insisting that the 'rights' and 'definition' of marriage are distinguishable things.  Semantics-wise, that might be the case, but legally they are so essential to each other that you cannot divorce the two in any meaningful way.  Indeed, the legal property aspect of marriage falls under both the rights associated and the definition, because if you exclude one of those things, you can't have the other.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For most cases in the United States, people get married to each other precisely because they are in love.  People choose who they want to marry because of the affection they have for each other, unlike other countries where you marry who and when at the discretion of your parents.  Civil unions aren't objectionable if they guarantee the same rights as a marriage, but then why bother calling it anything other than a marriage?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not sure how a ballot initiative with one side blaring the horns of confidence of inevitability of same-sex 'marriage' is shoving an agenda into your face.

You have forced this new definition of marriage on us, that's just the bottom line. That's the real reason for all of this is for Christians to feel upset. That's my opinion as to why this is happening.

Me and plenty of other Christians not only support gay marriage, but open our churches to homosexuals, ordain them, marry them, and include them in our social and spiritual activities.

You are not speaking for all Christians, and there is no conspiracy to 'make Christians feel upset.'  Stop bringing religion into things that do not concern religion.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Haha, no.  No.  I am not having another debate about what the Bible says or doesn't say about homosexuality.  Been there, done that.  And I'm especially not debating it with a guy who had jesus-is-savior.com in his signature, because I already know what will come out of that.

As I've said before, I don't care whether you guys think I'm a Christian or not.  I really don't.