America’s marriage wars
A warning for those who were horrified when Californians voted to overturn same-sex marriage laws last year — get ready to be horrified again.
It looks like same-sex marriage in Maine, legalised in May, will be overturned through a ballot initiative during elections in November. There is a massive effort underway to sway public opinion, but the numbers seem insurmountable, and unfortunately haters tend to be more motivated voters than our heterosexual allies.
It’s an unsettling reminder that democracy in its lowest form is just the dictatorship of 51 percent.
However, it’s not all storm clouds and rain — New York state is still set to pass a marriage equality bill before year’s end.
And in the District of Columbia, home to the US capital, where out-of-state same-sex marriages are already recognised, politicians on the local council have announced they have the numbers to legalise same-sex marriage proper and should be moving on this in the near future.
As the US Federal Government has a veto over laws passed by the District of Columbia this sets local authorities on a collision course with the Obama Administration, which is still to remove the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that bars legally married gays and lesbians from receiving any of the federal benefits of marriage available to heterosexuals.
Both Bill Clinton, the Democratic president who signed DOMA into law, and its author, retired Congressman Bob Barr, now oppose it. But even though President Obama has urged Congress to end DOMA, lawyers from his own Justice Department have continued to defend the law in court in the meantime.
However, it appears federal Democrats may finally be preparing to act. Congressman Jerrold Nadler has unveiled a Respect for Marriage Act that would not only end DOMA by allowing federal benefits to gay and lesbian couples in states that have marriage equality laws, but also provide them to gays and lesbians living in states where same-sex marriage is illegal, provided they cross the border and marry in a state where it is legal and then go home.
This would mean every couple in the United States that wished to be seen as married could be seen as such by at least one level of government — and the highest level at that.
Ramping up the pressure on Washington, will be the October 11 National Equality March, with hundreds of thousands expected to descend on the capital. US gay cable network Logo will even stop broadcasts for four hours during the march to encourage gay couch potatoes into the streets.
I know this comment is very late, but readers like myself who have been reviewing a lot of sites lately on SSM, have noticed a few things.
1. Rick Delano seems to be everywhere their is a site that is either pro or con SSM. If in doubt, just start a google search rick delano and before you can hit enter Google gives you a suggestion “rick delano gay marriage.”
2. You will notice a certain trend about Rick. He first makes a general comment and then in subsequent posts he brings in arguments that are not central to the point. He follows the script suggested by the sites like http://www.NationForMarriage.org
3. He will debate endlessly by challenging anyone’s source documentation, but when confronted by his false statements will apologize. Then the attacks and condescension will start. Sometimes a moderator, like on this site, will step in to stop that BS. Sometimes the entire thread will be deleted like the one about DC anti-gay-marriage ads. http://www.dallasvoice.com/instant-tea/2009/12/26/anti-gay-marriage-ads-on-d-c-transit/comment-page-1/ Now you only get a 404 message.
4. When too many posters start to challenge Rick, he will just claim victory claiming there is no more intelligent debate and will move on to his next targeted website.
5. In a Sept 25 post Rick said, “Truthfulness is why we won Prop 8.” If you have been following the trial in California on Prop 8, then you already know how truthful the proponents against SSM were.
PS You may also enjoy some of Rick’s comments about evolution and a woman’s freedom of choice. Like I said, he seems to be everywhere.
De Lano denies being hateful, loves it when the words bigotry and prejudice are used, and uses language which is condescending to other commentators here. Bigots like him will lie with no hesitation. They will deny something, like being hateful, when they are demonstrating the very thing. I have not seen any reason (not argment) here as to why people in same sex relationships should not be treated the same as anyone else, or enjoy the same rights, benefits and privileges. The arguments about defining marriage are wrong insofar as law in Australia is concerned. What may or may not have happened historically amongst various cultures is of no consequence as the world has evolved, and humanity (with notable exceptions) is more informed. Why should it matter to anyone else what happens in the next couples’ relationship? What happens in your marriage is your responsibility, and is not in any way influenced by another relationship, in terms of the status of your relationship, or your perception of its purpose. But look, as I said earlier you cannot reason with people like De Lano, clearly with a disordered personality, as he seems to derive pleasure from spreading hatred.
PS If I may return to DeLano’s very first post: YES. Genuinely caring parents WILL “surrender” their children to a same-sex marriage if that is what their children desire. As a father of two I would have no problem with it whatsoever, in fact I would welcome the stability and would be overjoyed to see my kids’ relationship validated in that way. I don’t know any parents who feel otherwise- but then I don’t live in Redneckville, Backwoods in the State of Ignorance USA.
The whole question of quotations is entirely academic and IRRELEVANT to the overriding fact that same-sex attracted persons are treated as second rate citizens if they are denied the right to marry. That is unacceptable: we are tax payers, we fulfill our various roles in society and we don’t deserve to be discriminated against. Mr DeLano may define marriage as the basis for procreation but it is not: as David points out, people may reproduce outside of marriage, and a heterosexual marriage may produce no children. That reality annihilates his narrow definition.
And anybody who says “guess what” and particularly “y’all” is a redneck. He is not only wrong about marriage but also about God, who does not exist except in the minds of desperate or in some way inadequate people.
Rick- Eusebius was quoting Bar Daisan’s “On Fate”, which, while it contains a similar version of the teaching contained in “Book of the Laws of the Countries”, is an entirely separate work.
“On Fate” is a lost work authored by Bar Daisan that survives only in fragments in other texts (such as Eusebius), whereas “Book of the Laws of the Countries” is an account of Bar Daisan’s words and teaching recorded from memory by one of his disciples which still exists as an intact document.
It is not a “forgery”. Nor are the versions of the two quotes presented by Rictor Morton and Connell O’Donovan “forgeries”- they are merely different translations from Greek and Latin that make the meaning of the original more clear than the Gifford version’s choice of words (who’s meaning is still revealed in context). Or do you believe Bar Daisan and Eusebius wrote in Modern English?
If this is your definition of “forgery” then the entire Bible has been forged many times over.
I already told you I do not own a copy of Hinch. If you seriously believe the ceremony presented in Spencer’s Homosexuality: A History represents a platonic form of adoption then you are unwilling to accept anything that is put before your eyes.
All your so-called “debunking” seems to rely on your failure to grasp basic concepts and your ignorance of other times and cultures and you refuse to link to any supporting material for your case when I have provided several.
You’re not struggling with me here- you’re struggling with yourself. I’d prefer you did that alone.
Still awaiting that Bret Hinch quote, Andrew……….
Hey guys, don’t get me wrong. I absolutely love it every time I hear the words “bigotry”, “fear mongering”, “prejudice”, etc.
These were precisely the terms we heard in California, during the Prop 8 fight, which…..well. We won as you will recall.
Now there is something to be said for adapting to changing circumstances, but if y’all insist on equating support for traditional marriage with bigotry and making that allegation the basis of your arguments, then guess what.
You’re going to lose.
Every time.
And that’s just about all right with me.
Cheers!
Editor’s Note: Mr DeLano, the forum is not here to act as your personal soapbox and is certainly not intended as a place where you can freely bait other posters.
I remind you there is an expectation you will treat all other forum posters with respect and address the topic at hand.
Unless you have something specific to post that relates the copy, I suggest you find something else to do with your time.
In politics when a group such as the religious right is losing legitimacy and change is afoot, it usually signals an increase in fear mongering and bigotry, a kind of last gasp before change occurs. The senate hearings in Australia and the appalling submissions by those who seek to deny others any semblance of equality and humanity, clearly illustrate that their day is over. It is now only a question of time before law abiding taxpaying gay citizens will enjoy the civil rights taken for granted by others. Since Reagan successfully used the evangelical card all those 25 years ago the US republicans and the religious right are asking themselves where they can go now? And in a way they have done us an enormous favor because most ordinary voters are a little tired of the ‘prejudice spin’ as it becomes more and more outrageous and the young voters are like ‘what?????’ I doubt whether the liberals here and the republicans in the US will ever return to office on the bile and hated they previously sewed within the community. Times have changed and bigotry ‘spin’ is generally seen as NOT a good look anymore.
Notice how many posts De Lano has made here, seeking to zealously rebut any comments arguing in favour of same sex marriage. You’ve got to ask yourself what is, I assume, a heterosexual man from the USA opposed to same sex marriage doing on a website of an Australian gay publication? Any comments he does not like is met with a swift rebuttal. Apart from ignoring meritorious arguments in favour of same sex marriage, his presentation deliberately (but not always successfully)seeks to appear calm and mannered, but do not be fooled by that veneer. The message is loud and clear. I think he’s having a bit of fun inciting gays. What does that tell you of his personality? People of his ilk will never listen to rational arguments in favour of same sex marriage, and I think he’s had more than enough attention here.
Some of the submissions to the same-sex marriage inquiry are on the Senate’s website. And it ain’t pretty. I can’t remember which one it was (I won’t look again – it’s too nauseating) but not only do the authors oppose the bill, they’re also against civil unions. I’m surprised they didn’t seek the recriminalisation of homosexuality. Another has a fetish about the different roles men and women supposedly should occupy. Never mind that vast differences exist between men or between women eg: that some are suitable parents and some are not. The AFA fall into the latter category.
Not only do the anti-gay submissions stink of homophobia, they are sexist to boot. Probably no surprise as anti-gay politics is historically anti-women as well.
Andrew, I should probably allow this pathetic quote of yours to pass, but in light of your misinterpretation of my posture I think it would do everyone a service to witness the truly awful weakness of the “evidence” which you have advanced in your quote from Spencer’s “Homosexuality: A History” (pgs 146-147):
“Ming sources reveal glimpses of homosexual love from a range of classes and regions. Though homosexuality was known as the ’southern custom’ in the provinces of Fujian and Guangdong, it seems to have been popular in the north as well. In Fujian there was a form of male marriage, a ceremony in which the older man referred to the younger as an ‘adoptive younger brother’. A carp, rooster and duck were sacrificed, and the men smeared each other’s mouths with the blood and swore eternal loyalty. The ceremony concluded with a feast. The younger man moved into the older man’s household and was treated as a son-in-law by the family.”
What we see here is a form of adoption, not marriage.
The author himself, admits this, since the *fact* is that the older man is *adopting*, not *marrying* the younger man.
And yet this is somehow to be understood as a form of marriage?
The complete confusion of face which your argumentation exhibits could not possibly be more resoundingly exemplified than here.
Homosexual relationships are not marriages, Andrew.
Adoption is not marriage either.
And I will be awaiting with interest your final attempt at salvaging your collapsing position here, with the “when are we finally going to see it anyway?” quote concerning Fujian province from Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.
Cheers!
Umm, Andrew, perhaps a bit more backtracking on your part is underway as well…….
You have *never provided any quotation whatsoever* from Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China.
Isn’t it quite remarkable that you should continually refuse my repeated requests that you *provide the quote* which you allege supports the widespread practice of same sex marriage in Fujian province?
I will hazard a guess as to why you refuse to provide the very quote you allege supports your allegation.
I will guess that there is no such quote.
I predict you will soon learn the value of discerning the difference between compassion and backtracking, Andrew.
Because at this point, it is really pathetic to watch you tap dancing about here, refusing to post the quotes from your own source!
The earliest version we have is at least a couple of centuries older than that, and guess what?
It contains an interpolated quote, *not found in the earlier text quoted by Eusebius*.
This is why your *own source admits that the interpolation is not authentic*.
Let us review, so that you can both see why it is folly to predicate one’s position on such dubious source material, and also perhaps acquire a sense of the distinction between compassion and backtracking.
I honestly felt sorry for you, Andrew, seeing you attempt to weave a defense out of the pathetic shreds of forgeries, misattributions, and ambiguities you have to work with here.
I do indeed feel compassion for you, but please understand, I have no reason whatsoever to backtrack.
Here is the *authentic quotation from Bardasian*, provided by the *fourth century* source text of Eusebius:
“Among the Gauls the young men *give themselves in marriage* openly, not regarding this as a matter of reproach, because of the law among them. Yet it cannot possibly have been the lot of all in Gaul who thus impiously suffer outrage to have the morning-star with Mercury setting in the houses of Saturn and regions of Mars at their nativities.” (emphasis added)
Here is the forged, later interpolation which *does not appear* in the fourth century citation by Eusebius, and which is, therefore, *unquestionably a forgery inserted at a later date, not authentic to the original text of Bardasian*:
“But in the North, and in the country of the Gauls and their neighbours, such youths among them as are handsome the men take as wives, and they even have feasts on the occasion; and it is not considered by them as a disgrace, nor as a reproach, because of the law which prevails among them. But it is a thing impossible that all those in Gaul who are branded with this disgrace should at their Nativities have had Mercury posited with Venus in the house of Saturn, and within the limits of Mars, and in the signs of the zodiac to the west. For, concerning such men as are born under these conditions, it is written that they are branded with infamy, as being like women.”
It is this forgery which *your own source*, Connel Donovan, states is *spurious*, since he can add and subtract.
Here’s hoping you can add up the numbers, too, and understand why every attempt to advance this forgery in future will be extremely ill-advised, since I intend to see to it that our debate and its insights is widely disseminated among interested observers of the tactics of the pseudo-marriage crowd.
Cheers!
“The Bardasian quote is indeed not Bardasian’s. Its provenance and reliability is extremely weak”
Not according to the Catholic Encyclopedia- http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02293a.htm
“Book of the Laws of the Countries”. This famous dialogue, the oldest remnant not only of Bardesanite learning, but even of Syriac literature, if we except the version of Holy Writ, is not by Bardesanes himself, but by a certain Philip, his disciple. The main speaker, however, in the dialogue is Bardesanes, and we have no reason to doubt that what is put in his mouth correctly represents his teaching. Excerpts of this work are extant in Greek in Euseb. (Praep. Ev., VI, x, 6 sqq.) and in Caesarius (Quaestiones, xlvii, 48); in Latin in the “Recognitions” of Pseudo-Clement, IX, 19sqq. A complete Syriac text was first published from a sixth- or seventh-century manuscript in the British Museum, by Cureton, in his “Spicilegium Syriacum” (London, 1855), and recently by Nau. It is disputed whether the original was in Syriac or in Greek; Nau is decided and rightly in favour of the former. Against a questioning disciple called Abida, Bardesanes seeks to show that man’s action are not entirely necessitated by Fate, as the outcome of stellar combinations. From the fact that the same laws customs, and manners often prevail amongst all persons living in a certain district, or, though locally scattered, living under the same traditions, Bardesanes endeavours to show that the position of the stars at the birth of individuals can have but little to do with their subsequent conduct. Hence the title “Book of the Laws of the Countries.”
In other words, the work is one and a half thousand years old, and is recognised as the correct teachings of Bardaisan, recorded by a disciple who’s name is known.
While you’re back pedalling I would like you to reveal the basis of your claim that same-sex marriage in Fujian as described in Bret Hinch’s Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China (and Homosexuality: A History) has been debunked. I can find nothing on the web that makes such a claim. I do hope its more than your wikipedia quote.
“the union of the two complementary genders of the human species, without which union the procreation and nurturing of future generations were impossible”
So really, at the end of the day, marriage for you boils down to ‘a penis goes in a vagina’. No mention of love there, sadly. Lets just forget that marriage is not a prerequisite for pregnancy, and assume you’re right.
If marriage is solely about procreation, why is it that we allow convicted rapists and murderers, and even known child abusers to marry? Why is there no religious prohibition on such people marrying when they have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not fit to be parents?
What is it that heterosexual rapists and murderers and child abusers can provide a child that a loving, committed law abiding same-sex couple cannot? Please don’t tell me its an appropriate gender role model?
As for Elton John’s solution- if you really want to erode the place of marriage in society, that’s the road to go down.
Marriage, if you mean opposite-sex marriage, is not in danger despite all the hyperbole. Nor is marriage the foundation of civilisation or any such rubbish. Human beings can reproduce without marriage as has been the case for millennia. And most heterosexuals don’t need De Lano or the Australian Family Association and their ilk defending their marriages. They are quite secure in their relationships and don’t require the services of anti-gay blowhards pompously going on about political earthquakes and the like.
Honestly, some straights would do better to fix up their own relationships rather than poke their nose into other people’s.
Adam:
I do oppose the redefinition of marriage.
And if your notion of equality involves the imposition of a redefinition of marriaige upon the rest of us, then yes.
You have very good reason to be concerned.
Because you won’t be able to impose it.
Therefore I suggest a very careful thinking through of Sir Elton John’s ideas on this question.
If Rick De Looser is an example of the lengths people will go to opposing equality then we have much reasons to be concerned!!
Andrew:
I am a fully committed activist for marriage in California, who has given not merely of his treasure, but also of his time and talent, in order to resist the attempt to falsely redefine marriage in California.
Since our victory here in Califonria was a political earthquake with international implications, won against very long odds, and won in the face of overwhelming opposition from California media and political opinion leaders, I have been through the battle, and enjoy the advantage of first-hand experience which only such a campaign can yield. I intend to share that experience and those lessons not only with those who agree with me, but equally importantly, with those who do not.
It is my hope that marriage can be defended and the culture wars can be brought to a negotiated peace on this front along the lines suggested by Sir Elton John.
If not, then it is imperative for the sake of our civilization that the attempt to redefine marriage as a contract between adults for their self-fulfillment, be resolutely defeated.
And it will be, please God.
David:
Marriage is either:
a) a contract between adults for their mutual fulfillment, or
b) the foundation of human civilization, as the union of the two complementary genders of the human species, without which union the procreation and nurturing of future generations were impossible.
Because the second definition reflects the truth of what marriage *is*, while the first does not, it remains impossible for you to redefine marriage in any jurisdiction where a free and full debate is followed by a free and fair election.
This truth will resound again, in Maine.
Cheers!
Andrew:
Thank you for your attention to my posts, and thank you again for not censoring mine.
First off, I think it is time for me to extend to you an apology, because what I had attributed to you as an intention to deceive, is clearly instead a determination to defend your position.
There is enough ambiguity with regard to the sources, as you have shown by deftly citing Bardasian from a Catholic site (touche!), that my too-quick-on-the-trigger proclivity to ascribe to you the worst of motives, has justly rendered in me the clear imperative of conscience that I apologize to you, since Christ commands of us who desire to be His followers, that we think the best of those with whom we disagree.
I have instead been too ready to think the worst of you.
Needless to say, we will continue to strongly disagree, not only on the question of marriage, but also on the admissibility of the Bardasian quote.
But when one overreaches, as I have done, and ascribes to an honorable opponent ill-founded motives to deceive and prevaricate which are not in fact consistent with the evidence, then far more important than the instant question of fact, is the larger question of truth.
The Bardasian quote is indeed not Bardasian’s. Its provenance and reliability is extremely weak, and I would never use a quote of such dubious historicity in debate on any issue.
But much more important than this was my eagerness to assume the worst about you.
I was wrong.
I apologize.
God be with you.
Rick- I’ve managed to find a copy of Bardaisan’s “Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries” online after all- http://web.archive.org/web/20080618092628/http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0862.htm
You will find it contains the following-
“Such are the laws of the people of the East. But in the North, and in the country of the Gauls and their neighbours, such youths among them as are handsome the men take as wives, and they even have feasts on the occasion; and it is not considered by them as a disgrace, nor as a reproach, because of the law which prevails among them. But it is a thing impossible that all those in Gaul who are branded with this disgrace should at their Nativities have had Mercury posited with Venus in the house of Saturn, and within the limits of Mars, and in the signs of the zodiac to the west. For, concerning such men as are born under these conditions, it is written that they are branded with infamy, as being like women.”
You will note NewAdvent.org is a Catholic site, not a gay site.
Crikey. Don’t tell me Mr DeLano’s posts were even longer?
Hi Rick, actually I originally found it at http://rictornorton.co.uk/marriage.htm A biography of the author of that article can be found at- http://rictornorton.co.uk/biogrn.htm I suspect his is a little more authoritative than yours.
His translation is- “Among the Gauls, the young men marry each other (gamountai) with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them.”
I only linked to the Tertullian page as it was the only internet resource that provided the work in full (and apparently for you if something cannot be found on the internet, it does not exist). I agree the EF Gifford 1903 translation is unclear. The original Greek apparently is not.
Why would Eusebius and his contemporaries find it controversial that Gallic men married with complete freedom if this was a reference to heterosexual marriage? Why would they find it strange that this occurred without reproach if this was a reference to heterosexual marriage.
I note there are a wealth of other classical quotes confirming that peoples among the Gallic and German tribes did accept homosexual relationships at http://www.connellodonovan.com/weerdingemen.html that you choose to ignore. Are they “forgeries” as well?
In Connell O’Donovan’s opinion the second quote is “spurious”- that does not mean that the work does not exist- just that its authorship is in doubt. The same could be said about large tracts of the New Testament. He has no doubts about the first, which he also cites as referring to same sex marriage between the Gauls and these other quotes from classical writers give cultural context to this.
It is well known that the Romans and Greeks focused on the acceptance of same sex relationships between men of the same age among the Celtic peoples of Europe (in contrast with the Greco-Roman tradition of pederasty) as proof of their barbarism.
David Skidmore- from what I can tell from a quick google, Rick is a heterosexual American Christian troll who haunts internet blogs about gay marriage to boast about how much money he gives in support of anti-gay marriage initiatives.
It will also be my duty to address the entire text of this debate, which I have saved, to the editors of your paper, since you have elected to censor my posts which conclusively demonstrate, at the very least, journalistic dereliction.
If they also ignore this, then I shall consider whether my obligations would extend to a wider internet distribution of the debate, including those portions which you have dishonorably failed to post.
Rick De Lano, like most who argue against same-sex marriage, is full of bluster, makes out that opposite sex marriage is under threat by gay activists and generally misrepresents the points of his opponents because he has no real argument to put forward. But that can work for a while but not forever.
My point is (again) that same-sex marriage can only be permanently suppressed in regimes that are generally anti-democratic and repress the rights of individuals.
You see, if same-sex marriage was a zero-sum game then it’d have no chance. However, same-sex marriage can co-exist with opposite sex marriage. It already does in some countries. I’d like to know how gay men or lesbians marrying each other can somehow cause opposite sex marriages to somehow fall apart. My straight parents are not threatened. Why is Mr De Lano’s mob?
I’m also amazed at the hypocrisy over the label of “bigot” De Lano demonstrates. I’ve been a gay activist for quite a while. I know the opponents of gay rights only too well. I don’t know Rick De Lano – he appears to be an American blow-in and maybe unfamiliar with Fred Nile or the Australian Family Association but his anti-gay line is only too familiar.
Dear Andrew:
Do you intend to censor my post, above?
Then forgive me, there is no possibility that I can assist you in any way at all, and it were better if I did not provide you with the occasion to further anesthetize your conscience.
Good luck.
God be with you.
Be advised that I will circulate this exchange widely enough that any future attempts to rely upon this disgraceful forgery will be unfruitful.
Thank you for addressing this, Andrew.
I am truly dismayed to have to report what I have found.
Firstly, you have provided us with two different versions of your quote, one of which is a *forgery*, Andrew.
Your first post, on September 24th, 2009 @ 5:55 pm, *falsely* quotes Eusebius as follows:
“Among the Gauls, the young men *marry each other* with complete freedom. In doing this, they do not incur any reproach or blame, since this is done according to custom amongst them.” (emphasis added)
The above text is a *forgery*. It does *not* appear in Eusebius, nor does it appear in Bardaisan.
The actual text- which you quote in your post of September 25th, 2009, @ 5:08pm reads:
“Among the Gauls the young men *give themselves in marriage* openly, not regarding this as a matter of reproach, because of the law among them. Yet it cannot possibly have been the lot of all in Gaul who thus impiously suffer outrage to have the morning-star with Mercury setting in the houses of Saturn and regions of Mars at their nativities.” (emphasis added)
So why would you originally advance a quote as evidence of young men “marrying each other” when the actual quote says only that young men “give themselves in marriage”?
What do you imagine that you gain by such tactics?
Why employ them?
So that you can set some other poor defender of the gay agenda up to use the same flimflammery and doctoring of texts, only to be caught out and disgraced in turn?
But let us follow this ugly path where it leads.
How did this practice of doctoring texts get started in the first place?
Here’s how.
Your second quote is also a *forgery*, Andrew.
This second forgery references Bardaisan of Edessa. You *falsely* allege him to have written:
“In the countries of the north- in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome young men assume the role of wives towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts.”
This above quote, again, is a *forgery*. It is *not* the work of Bardaisan of Edessa.
But here is where it gets truly troubling, Andrew.
I found this quote online, and could not but notice that you had stated in your post that:
“The second quote is from Bardaisan’s “The Book of the Laws of Diverse Countries”, the whole of which is unfortunately not reproduced anywhere online.”
Them how, I wondered, were you able to find the quote?
Now I have a very important question for you sir, because I assure you I have found your source of the quote, I know that you posted it selectively so as to avoid further devastation to the original allegation of Eusebius’ text, and I know that you could have gotten the quote nowhere else.
So let us be truthful with one another at last, Andrew.
What is the online source of your forgery above, which you have falsely attributed to Bardaisan?
Would it be:
http://www.connellodonovan.com/weerdingemen.html
Yes or no?
We both know it is “yes”, since the quote is found online only here.
We now see how you falsely attributed the quote to Bardasian, *when your own source told you that it was spurious*!
I sincerely hope you can at least have kindness in your heart for other would be defenders of your position, who might be led to undertake the supreme folly of trusting you as a reliable source in these questions.
As for me, I sincerely hope to have at least done you the service of assisting you in being ashamed of yourself.
Good day to you.
There is no reason why people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. Historical precedent is not a reason: precedent can be ignored. While history famously repeats itself, society changes. Maintaining population growth is not a reason: some heterosexual marriages do not produce offspring yet are still regarded as legitimate. Religious disapproval is no reason: not everyone in a secular society subscribes to a religion. Public opinion is no reason: the public are wilfully misinformed on most issues. These ‘reasons’ are mere excuses.
There are reasons why people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. Legitimate marriage de-stigmatises homosexuals, helping to eradicate the emotional problems sometimes associated with same-sex attraction and removing any presumed justification for homophobic violence. And rather than weakening the institution of marriage, it strengthens it by bringing many more committed relationships ‘on board’.
There is simply no case in logical terms for the continued refusal of authorities to sanction same-sex marriage, so we can only assume their reticence is based on ignorance and prejudice.