But I agree!!!!!!

As a side note: This is why I hardly ever post in these threads. All I do is say "ditto" under JB's posts.

I want marry who will marry me
any woman
plz contact me
Skype ..ajaysingh211
some SMS calling to me

gay marriage is evil and America is being brought down because of it

CowChips!

come on,let them do some frolicking,don't they work hard enough all year?

that Hellfire and Brimstone Preaching really must be getting hard at times!

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

By the way things are.. no its being accepted.

The scriptures point to many things would happen before yahshua's return.

1 Being it would be like Sodom and Gommorah.

2. people would be marrying

3rd. even more than Gay marriage with has come about everywhere is what Happened to Moses and Yahshua after they were born and is happening again.

THe Slaughter of the Innocents.. Moses put in the river and raised by Egyptian Royalty.

The Slaughter of the Innocents when Yahshua was a small child sending him to Egypt.

Now with everyone saying that's against my rights we are in a free for all.

The Slaughter of the innocents coming down through our High Council Roe vs wade is the 3rd and final sine of this slaughter.

Our courts saying what is evil is good and what is good is evil has to do with the Death penalty.

The 1972 action started the death penalty act and do what u will attitude.

This woman's rights issue has lead to you can do whatever you want with your body and you are protected.

Thus in the 90's people came out of the closet so too speak with will and grace.

Its a timeline we have for prophecy. These things have been recorded would happen. Special rights, changing laws, calling what scripture says is good as evil. anyone who does not support these actions is evil. think they are better than others. a change in attitudes of people. Yahshua even said pray you are not giving nurse during these times.

Is it just giving nurse having a baby?

Matt 24:19-20
19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
NKJV

Why would he say woe to those who are pregnant? it is a warning for pregnant women to be aware. also even the raising of the children because we are in an evil vs good flipped upside down. would not be a good time for those women.

Gay Marriage is just a piece of paper that says u can get married couples benefits. Not a real marriage but an abomination according to scripture.

Gays I do not worry about. Its prophecy it will happen.

Instead of fighting it learn about it from the scriptures because its prophecy unfolding before us. study and learn whats next.

1) heterosexual couples participate in sodomy. also, you seem to be focused on men? are you more lenient with homosexual women?

2) STD's in general are more common now because of modern societies over sexualized youth and our lack of monogamy and morals.

3) i'm confused on this one. how are children and gay marriage matters related? do you know that there are transgendered children and young teens that identify as homosexual? and regardless of legality issues surrounding homosexual marriage, children are exposed to reality. there are far more dangerous things that children could potentially be exposed to, for me.. who someone wants to spend their life with should not be a main concern to a child or parent/guardian of that child.

that being said, i do not think that gay marriage should be a religious experience.. i.e should not be done in a church or by anyone from any religious association. i do however think that homosexual couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples have, from a legal standpoint.

it does not surprise me that 'christians' have practiced things not of the bible,,,,since the bible,,,

its just a new development in how the AMERICAN culture has embraced marriage to be defined,,,

I think what you are trying to say is that you think sex is evil unless it is between a man and a woman right?

Marriage is just a contract.

A contract is an agreement.

Agreements and contracts can't be "evil."

Also, it is not "gay marriage" that is bringing down America.

It is the money lenders and their fractional reserve lending.

Wake up out of your trance.

You are, of course, forgetting the Secret Gospel of Mark. This was, as admitted by the Church, removed from the rest of the text. A seeming innocent enough story, however tinged with overt homosexual imagery. It was suppressed with the now classic line, after all: "A lie to a Pagan, is not a lie"

marriage is a contract that includes a presumption of sex,, which is why (for a short while longer) the culture has shied away from allowing incestuous marriage

certainly family is permitted to enter any mere 'contract' they want to ?

so,, this idea of the government rubber stamping this SEXUAL activity,,is what is the controversy and the objection,,,,

now,, if it is reduced to merely a 'contract',, which it is certainly now on its way to being,,,then the states definition no longer matches any biblical definition, and their choice to use the term marriage is less of the issue than their complicity in supporting and advocating for this sexual activity,,,

So then you are saying that the term "marriage" is similar to the term "sin" and should only be thought of and used in a religious context?

(I know that Christians like to claim that everyone "sins" but the term "sin" is not used in courtrooms and is apparently reserved for religion and religious concepts.) People go to court for their crimes, not for their 'sins.'

It seems then, that if you are right, then to change the definition of the term marriage, which is a Biblical term meaning union between a man and a woman, would be mixing CHURCH and STATE when we keep insisting that there should be a separation between church and STATE.

So are you for or against separation of Church and State?
Should government get involved with religion or stay out of it?
Should "marriage" only be defined by the church?
(If yes, then what term shall an atheist use for their civil union?)

If they should stay out of it, then that is the reason that Public conducted Prayer cannot be allowed or sanctioned in schools which are public schools paid for by government via taxes.

This would be the proper approach for Churches to demand that the word "marriage" not be used for gays, and "civil union" should be replaced. As long as all the benefits are equal, this should not be a problem. Otherwise its just an argument over semantics.

If the term "marriage" is deemed a religious term defined by the church, and your government does NOT comply with this request to call it "civil union" then they are guilty of a marriage between church and State themselves, and they can no longer prevent prayer in schools and will need to pick a religion to sanction as a 'government religion."

Perhaps then, we should not presume anything of the sort.
Or perhaps we should re-define what "sex" is.

Can two men have sex?
Can to women?
Can you have sex by yourself?

Isn't the sexual act for procreation between a man and a woman?

Or is fooling around and having an orgasm considered "sex?"

If so, then Bill Clinton really did have sex with that woman.

According to him, a blow job is not "sex."

Civil Unions to be a govt. term to show it is a union Beyond Church and state.

This way the Historical Value of Generations Of the Many who Defined Marriage as between a man and woman.

The bindings of civil unions with traditional marriage changes the very history of millions.

Civil Unions being exactly what they are. Are conducted by a Civil Servant. A judge or what not and not look to the Tradionalists

for their Homeland Papers of Benefits is fair for all.

It is here already. They will be proud of their Civil Union just as we will be proud of our Marriage.


To take all of a sudden and change the meaning of since Times Past. History is not preserved. Only an equivalent tax couples benefits. Will never change a family tree. It will always be the father ,wife son and daughter in a search for where do we fit in our own history.

Same Sex Couples in society is a new Concept. with new challenges born within a society that does not understand them.

A New Revolution should harness its energy into its purpose.

Others in our Past have had women on the left men on the right. Always separated. Their reasoning they were spiritual virgins at baptism and this is the life you entered into and or if married would separate and live separately men and womens dorms. Sex was banned so propriation was impossible. I think they died out.

To be fair to everyone aside. History can not change so far 1 way that in times too come what marriage is, will really be mested up.

Civil Unions define just as Marriage defines and we should leave it at that

sex, involves penetration, and sex organs

only way that happens is between a man and a woman,,,

however, our culture has a broader definition of what constitutes sex,,,obviously, gay couples could never consummate unless we broadened the term to not require the sexual organs,,,,



and yes,, if government is to be involved in marriage, its best they dont call it marriage because that implies the male female union,, the foundation for bringing life in the world,,,etc,,

I would prefer very much if they didnt call it marriage when something other than a male female union is involved,,,

however, to appease the 'rights' folks,,, I would say that they then shouldnt be involved in marriage at all, since I dont want them labeling every union as such

but, to make it truly an EQUAL right for all,,, it should be regardless of anything but consentual age,, it should apply to ANY two adults, and for that it should not have any presumption of sex,,,,so we dont venture into sanctioning incestuous sex,,(or stigmatizing it,, as that is not 'equal treatment' either)

just dont concern the relationship with sex at all, call it a 'civil union',, since it is allegedly about 'civil rights',, and allow all adults to enter into one with another adult,,,,I would concede to that in the name of equal rights for all

Msharmony, is that just your opinion of what constitutes sex or do you know if there is an actual legal description of sex and consummation?



FYI government is involved in marriage and has been for a long time.

Implying something is not a legal description.

What I want to know now, is if the term "marriage" has an actual legal description or if it has it always just been "presumed and implied" to involve sex between a man and woman for (possible) procreation purposes.

If so, then a marriage between an old couple who can't have children anymore should be invalid. Right? No procreation.

Two males may not be able to procreate, but they could certainly adopt a child and they need a contract like marriage to determine parental rights.

Two females can have children and they too need a marriage-like contract to secure parental rights.

I am not familiar with the 'civil union' contracts or if they are equally as strong as a marriage contract which seems to have a lot of presumptions and implications attached to it.

I think some people just don't want to have to define these presumptions legally because then the government really would be getting into our personal and private lives.

yes, marriage has a legal definition,, there has always been a legal definition from the time government became involved,,,they have to define it ,,,but states are now giving in to pressure to change their definitions

there is no requirement to procreate as that would be infringing on a persons reproductive rights

anyone can ADOPT a child,, marriage isn't really about adopting children,,thats not even something someone has to be married to do

two males, nor two females can CREATE Children together,, though they can adopt or blend families from whatever time in their life that their preference wasn't same sex,,,,or from whatever costly procedure they were able to undergo for the child to be created with someone else,,

and I believe people want to do what they want to do,, all the while claiming a hatred and distrust and meddling of government while demanding the government get involved in advocating for their sexual choices,,,,

and it is my opinion its come to a ridiculous stage where government should then be out of the sex business altogether by truly 'staying out' of everyones sexual choices and eliminating the sexual factor from the 'contract' altogether

renaming it would be a great indicator of that extreme change too,,, to emphasize this great 'civil rights' issue,,, government should, IMHO,, be in the business of civil unions,,,,with no consideration to sexual activity, between whatever adults wish to enter into one

and everyone will then feel they are being afforded 'equal rights'

Then if marriage is not about man-woman procreation, why the objection to gay couples?



Not the point. The point is, IF a gay couple is raising a child, however they acquired the child, they need something that can secure parental rights with no B.S. interference.