Since when has marriage been strictly associated with Christianity?

To those who are saying that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman because it is declared in biblical text, where do you gain the information that marriage was ever fully religious? If anything, old time marriages were far from a religious ordeal - but rather a business deal.





The term ';marriage'; first occurred in Rome, and this term was applied towards same-sex couples as well, until the year 342 where same-sex marriage was declared illegal by Christian emperors.





Now, since the term ';marriage'; itself does not apply strictly to Christianity, or religion itself - then what other reasons do you feel homosexuals should not be able to marry?





If you give the same rights, then you can apply the same term to the couple as well. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment, why refuse to let others show their commitment and love to another - despite their sexual preference? I see no valid reason to deny anyone those rights.





Thank you for your answers.Since when has marriage been strictly associated with Christianity?
Agreed.


I was thinking about this one day.





Basically, by Christians saying it is a union between a man and a woman by THEIR book, they are saying ONLY CHRISTIANS CAN GET MARRIED!





What about all other religions and non religious people?





REGARDLESS of where marriage first came from, it is NOT just a religious or Christian ceremony.





It is ONLY religious when it is /performed by a priest in a church/


(Not saying that you cannot have a religious ceremony outside. That is not what I mean.)





Besides, if marriage was so sacred, then the divorce rate wouldn't be over 50% would it?Since when has marriage been strictly associated with Christianity?
Marriage was associated with Judaism long before Christianity came along. In Judaism too, such same gender relationships were unacceptable.





Terminology-wise,


';Wife'; was first used in Genesis 2 referring to a female,


and ';Husband'; was first used in Genesis 3 referring to a male.


';Marriage'; is first mentioned in Exodus 21 and the verb ';marry'; is first used in Genesis 38
Agreed. I think there is nothing at all wrong with same sex marriage. What happened to everyone being treated equally, not just some groups being treated more equally than others?





And to Angeltress down there, ever heard of adoption? Or in vitro? Homosexuals can have children, whether they are of their own blood or not.
excuse me, you are incorrect about the first use of the term ';marriage'; -either you are mistaken or altering facts to fit your argument.









Since those damn gays decided they should have rights.





How dare they?!
I am wondering if this means I am not married. I am not a christian.
Since never. Christianity is an upstart newcomer.
That's what happens when there is a religious majority in a country.
I think you're right. Equal treatment under the law.
As far as I can see it began in the garden when God brought Eve to Adam
Okay, well, Christians, as you know, believe in the Bible.


And, in the Bible, God creates man and woman to complement each other. Later, in a discussion about marriage, Jesus referred to the Beginning, and asserted that a man would leave his mother and cleave to his wife, and that they would be ';one flesh';....which, to the Christian, defines marriage.


The point is, that to the Christian mind, marriage is as old as mankind, and has always been about the mating of a man and a woman.





Now, most Christians do realize that people outside of our faith don't think the same way that we do, and the majority are content that our laws are not for people outside of our faith...within reason, of course.


Most of us would have no problem at all if gay couples would be satisfied with, as you called it yourself, a business contract...which is really all the state can grant to them, anyhow. ALL we ask is that they not call it ';marriage';, which is the union under God between a man and a woman.


We know they are going to be gay anyhow, and have their ';ceremonies'; and such...but really, why is it so dam important to call it ';marriage';? Call it a ';Civil Union'; or some other term that does not raise Christian hackles. Nobody cares if gay couples have the same legal rights as hetero couples, except maybe the most rabid among the fundies...





I am against homosexuality because it involves anal sex, which is a serious health threat, not only to the men who practice it, but to the people around them, as well. Having just watched a very dear man die by slow and agonizing inches of an incurable staph infection (he was ill for several years...no, not days, not weeks, not months...YEARS), I am not eager to have gay men livng near me or my children or grandchldren...nor would I be overjoyed to think that their ';children'; (and how could their be children without both male and female?) would be in school with them. Staph is VERY contagious, and, unlike stds, you CAN get it from a toilet seat...or a doorknob, or from an affected child's pencil...WORSE, it is air borne. Medical personel will tell you that, in the event that they must operate on someone with staph, they go so far as to tape material over the very walls of the room to protect them. Don't take my word for it. Google it for yourself.


Of course, you do realize that the little germ responsible is found in human feces, right?


Doctors say that they are seeing up to 30% increase in antibiotic resistant staph.


Uh...I wonder how THAT happened??
It never has, which is an arguement against you trying to make it a religious thing. But that doesn't mean that whatever you say is good is good.





Let's talk strict reason, Bad pleasures in Plato's Gorgias, okay. What does Socrates say :





Socratesmentions various dishonorable pleasures, such as a life spent scratching itches, or a Catamite's pleasures [Catamite = young male kept by a pederast, i.e. who is passive partner in anal sex.]








At this point, Callicles stops answering honestly, and abandons the search for truth. He states a position he does not sincerely hold, that all pleasures are equally good, which seems to be required by the case, if pleasure is all that good is, i.e. if pleasure is THE good.





SOCRATES: Shall I pursue the question? And here, Callicles, I would have you consider how you would reply if consequences are pressed upon you, especially if in the last resort you are asked, whether the life of a catamite is not terrible, foul, miserable? Or would you venture to say, that they too are happy, if they only get enough of what they want?





CALLICLES: Are you not ashamed, Socrates, of introducing such topics into the argument?





SOCRATES: Well, my fine friend, who admits of no distinction between good and bad pleasures? And I would still ask, whether you say that pleasure and good are the same, or whether there is some pleasure which is not a good?








===============





In sum, I disagree with you on utterly rational grounds. Don't bring religion into it. It makes you look even worse.



I can't really answer any of your questions because I am an avid gay rights activist, but I wanted to thank you for supplying me with some history that I was unaware of and that will make a better argument for same sex marriages.


But I can give you a little insight into the political role in all of this. A good majority actually has to do with insurance companies; I hope you know what lobbying is...well anyways, the insurance companies know that when two people marry their health benefits, etc, are now also applicable to their partner, and they have accepted this for many years with straight marriage. But now there comes a time where they may have to begin supplying for an even greater population, and lets face it, they hate to lose money. So they will lobby against same sex marriages in order to keep their money, and they send financial support to political candidates who promise to prevent same-sex marriages. Isn't it upsetting how much money has a hold on everyone?