Faithful Ag said:

---

So you are able to find a select few instances or rumors of what might have been same-sex marriage (or at least Nero putting on a show of a marriage to another man), and a few rare or isolated examples that could be counted on one hand from 10,000BC up until the 1970's? Do you consider this a convincing argument to counter the overwhelming historical evidence that marriage was a male/female relationship? These examples are the rare exception and not the societal norms.

Homosexuality was widely practiced in Rome and really throughout all of history. Nobody is denying that fact, but the idea of same-sex marriages was a foreign concept to virtually all civilizations until only the past 40-50 years.

---

dermdoc said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

The word marriage today does not hold the same meaning as it did before.

---

Not holding the "same meaning" is not remotely the same as being "meaningless". It's just defined differently by the state. Faith traditions can define it in accordance with their faith traditions. Just as the state can define it in accordance with its secular principles, especially given the fact that the state should not be free to discriminate.

---

So what role should the state have in marriage according to its secular principles. What are those principles?

---

I personally think zero. I think the state should recognize civil unions. Marriage is a religious covenant between a man and woman.

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you consider this a convincing argument to counter the overwhelming historical evidence that marriage was a male/female relationship?

---

Your original comment said "never". Counterexamples were provided. Perhaps you shouldn't talk in such absolutes.

---

This is fair. I did speak in absolutes. Lesson learned but I hold that my general point remains.

Sometimes I forget the internet is like a deposition.

---