I don't think it has been, some of the ancient Greeks had it as something young guys and adult men could do, but not  adult men.  Which doesn't fit our model of marriage anymore than Semite polygamy does.  I take the view that we're programmed to be satisfied by pine boards, and what we do to each other is culture--and we are totally free to choose or reject our culture.

You're right, BiefstukFriet: Sex isn't related to sexual reproduction. And marriage has nothing to do with sexual partners. I was tooootally coming out of left field pretending they were connected!

consent of the governed works better than dictatorship

Remember the Golden Rule

Set fire to it and shoot the runners

RD, it all comes from the fact that "marriage" is a religious belief. A civil union is not. It is just formal relationship recognized by the govt. it should be available for all. Marriage cannot be for homosexuals as long as the religions do not accept it. It should never be a govt issue but because of ignorance it is.

We Trademarked the word Marriage, we defined it, we set standards for it, and this worked for more than 2000 years. Then governments saw a chance to control it and get fees for it.

It is still our word, go get your own!

Bacchus, a plant, animal or item != human

my point being, christ was born roughly 2000 years ago. and some people r claiming that gives them the right to mariage and deny it to others. is a flawed argument how u even would try to bring it.

gay has and will always be.
if they contribute to our sociaty as everyone else, they have the same rights as everyone else.

Marriage was around long before Christianity existed. The Romans practised marriage. So did the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. I can imagine the people from Asia minor practised marriage as well, just as the people from the Indus valley, the Mesoptamic region, and Eastern Asia. Some of these civilisations being around even before the Jewish, way before Jesus Christ had even been born.

Is it really Christianity's word, does Christianity have the right to define what marriage should be made up of?

Sidenote: Jesus Christ lived in a period of time during which homosexual sex was widely practised, and during which the love between two men was considered by some to be superior to the love between a man and a woman. It is not unimaginable to think that Jesus Christ himself had performed some of these deeds the Bible denounces as sins. Mind you, the Bible was written well after Jesus had died, and is a collection of texts that for years had been communicated and preserved for later generations by word, being at the mercy of the memory, imagination and interpretation of those who spread their knowledge to ultimately be bundled into what is called the Bible.

First of all Christians, Jews, even Muslims, worship the same God (the only one).

We can all refer to this as ours.

We own it. Since Adam and Eve, we own it.

As for the claim of Gayness of Christ, fly away you lying Btard. I mean that sincerely. You revisionists try to paint him as anything but what he was. Go away.

"Sidenote: Jesus Christ lived in a period of time during which homosexual sex was widely practised, and during which the love between two men was considered by some to be superior to the love between a man and a woman."

By who?

RisingDown,

Marriage is linked to reproduction because sex is linked to reproduction.

The logical connection between marriage and children is that every study ever done has shown that having both of their parents around offers many benefits to children. As it turns out, men and women committed to one another and their offspring are what's best for their offspring.

Marriage is based on this logical commitment for the sake of childbearing. As it turns out, healthy people who find suitable mates tend to enjoy not only committing to them, but having kids and committing to their family as well. Who knew.

Redefining the word "marriage" to mean something that it never has would not bestow social position. Many people would still believe that homosexuality is dysfunctional. Redefining a word won't change minds any more than it will enable homosexuals to procreate.

Unless any ancient people ever used the same word for marriage to describe homosexuals, it's already been well-defined. I do not enjoy these linguistic acrobatics!

A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. It just so happens that such a union is capable of creating children and families. This differs from homosexual unions, which are not marriages capable of creating families. If you have examples of people referring to homosexual relations as marriages in history, I'd love to hear them. Because those relationships just don't serve the same function. They don't have the same status because they're not of the same sort or capacity or purpose.

I'm not sure what you're basing "widely practised" on. There were plenty of weirdo barbarians back in the day, but that didn't make them the norm.

i'll compromise and support marriage between flipper and bonzo