Political Crossfire Forums

[John]

mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm not a sinner. There is no God, ergo, I don't sin. :wink:

That's the underlying logic behind why people convince themselves that God doesn't exist.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Some one else actually included the Catholic Catechism pointing out that while the behavior is not acceptable the PERSON MUST be respected, loved AND treated JUSTLY. That is fine. Then why not allow them to get legally married? Why make a religious opinion of what a marriage is effective for everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs?
Quote: Yet your response is to say that my position simply because it is not acceptable to you, PROVES I HATE homosexuals. It is not about you, G'bert. Your position is fine, as long as you don't try to force it onto others. Are you personally doing this? I don't know, are you?
This debate isn't about you, it is about one group trying to enact their beliefs into law that governs everyone. That is not just.
Quote: You obviously don't KNOW anything about Catholicism if you think "people are frowned upon when they ask a why question". Are you serious with this grand assumption? That's sad G'bert....
I tell you my personal experiences and you want to try to deny them - to tell me I am wrong? I don't know what actually happened? That is selfish (which, remember, to you is a sin) to think you know what happened. Any shred of honesty and credibility you might have had is now gone.
Quote: Despite all of the responses by the Christians and Catholics in this thread to the contrary, you assert we are all liars, that it is our HATRED which drives us and not our faith. As always, you assume too much. If you want to believe I think you are all liars, be my guest. Sounds like a guilty conscious to say such a thing.
But it was a good attempt to change direction of the conversation away from what is actually being discussed. The 'poor, mistreated, misunderstood Christian' concept is old and tired.

You can have your faith - no one here that I have seen has debated that. The rub is when one group (christians, religious - whatever term you wish to use) tries to enforce their definition (which, not all christians can obviously agree on) of what a marriage is on others in a legal aspect.
Do you not see that as a problem?

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:

Why do christians insist on placing their belief of this issue into gov't law? What purpose would that serve?

What beliefs should we feel free to express? The ones with which you agree?

How does one form principals? Is there any other way for an individual to form his principles than by what he/she holds as his/her MOST fundamental beliefs? We are looking to sell wine in grocery stores here in MA what if I am Muslim and don't believe alcohol should be SOLD ANY WHERE, should I NOT OBJECT on relgious reasons, when I have not other reason???

It's kind of self-censorship. If you are a Mulim and want no alchohol sold, then expect of religions to impose restrictions, too.

The best thing is for religions to turn inward, render unto Ceaser the which is Ceasers" and stay out of Secular matters (gov't).

That doesn't mean you can't speak up about things that are morally right or wrong, but, for example, if you think ham or homosexuality is a sin, and the only source you have is "because God said so" then expect to prove there is a God, or that it is wrong for society based on other objective, measurable metrics.

And what then are "objective" measureable metrics with which you "prove" homosexuality is moral, which permit the non religious the special ability to speak with NO source of moral authority?

This comment seems to infer that non religious people don't have the ability to know what is moral and what isn't. Is this what you are saying? I sincerely hope not.
You can believe being gay is wrong or immoral. But that isn't the question, as morality is as subjective as which diet soda taste better.
Isn't it funny that churches will usually allow gays to come and worship (but I have seen exceptions) and give their money, but deny them the ability for protection under the same law that allows these churches to operate with a tax free status?
The lives of gay people, (since it is obviously a choice to be gay) aren't valued enough to give them legal protection of the term marriage (which Christian's seem to think they own), but their money sure is valuable enough to take.
Just one example of the church's hypocritical stance on the matter.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote:
You can have your faith - no one here that I have seen has debated that. The rub is when one group (christians, religious - whatever term you wish to use) tries to enforce their definition (which, not all christians can obviously agree on) of what a marriage is on others in a legal aspect.
Do you not see that as a problem?

Yes I do.

Think about it this way, for as long as marriage has existed it has been DEFINED legally and religiously as between a man and a woman.

So then Who is seeking to "enforce their definition of what a marriage is on others".

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
You can have your faith - no one here that I have seen has debated that. The rub is when one group (christians, religious - whatever term you wish to use) tries to enforce their definition (which, not all christians can obviously agree on) of what a marriage is on others in a legal aspect.
Do you not see that as a problem?

Yes I do.

Think about it this way, for as long as marriage has existed it has been DEFINED legally and religiously as between a man and a woman.

So then Who is seeking to "enforce their definition of what a marriage is on others".

That is the christian definition of marriage. Historically, "marriage" (the joining of two people with or without religious ceremony) has been around long before christianity has. Your idea, while honest, is nothing more than an assumption based upon your belief, not fact.
As I said prior numerous times, Christianity doesn't own the rights to the term marriage outside their religious belief. Christianity can't even come to a total agreement on what a marriage is. How can you expect others to agree with you, when not all of you can agree on it?

Again, you try to circumvent the question at hand:
Why do religious groups seek to make gay marriage illegal?
What does two people getting married on one side of the planet have to do with your marriage or ability to get married?
How does it effect you?

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
You can have your faith - no one here that I have seen has debated that. The rub is when one group (christians, religious - whatever term you wish to use) tries to enforce their definition (which, not all christians can obviously agree on) of what a marriage is on others in a legal aspect.
Do you not see that as a problem?

Yes I do.

Think about it this way, for as long as marriage has existed it has been DEFINED legally and religiously as between a man and a woman.

So then Who is seeking to "enforce their definition of what a marriage is on others".

That is the christian definition of marriage. Historically, "marriage" (the joining of two people with or without religious ceremony) has been around long before christianity has. Your idea, while honest, is nothing more than an assumption based upon your belief, not fact.

Marriage exists in every culture, country and religion, historically in ALL of those countries, cultures and religions marriage is virtually the same concept.

So I ask again who is seeking to "force" their view upon others?


toddytodd wrote: As I said prior numerous times, Christianity doesn't own the rights to the term marriage outside their religious belief. Christianity can't even come to a total agreement on what a marriage is. How can you expect others to agree with you, when not all of you can agree on it? I never said it did, marriage has been a nearly universal concept in some form for thousands of years. And for all of that time it has been between a man and a woman.

toddytodd wrote: Again, you try to circumvent the question at hand:
Why do religious groups seek to make gay marriage illegal?
People can not make something illegal which is not and never has been legal. Those seeking change and those "enforcing" views are those seeking to redefine marriage, not the large majority who seek to keep things the same while making sure legal protections are available to EVERYONE.

toddytodd wrote: What does two people getting married on one side of the planet have to do with your marriage or ability to get married?
How does it effect you?

I have stated my reasoning on this several times I feel no need to do it AGAIN. Please look back in the thread the other 3 or 4 times I have explained my position.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
You can have your faith - no one here that I have seen has debated that. The rub is when one group (christians, religious - whatever term you wish to use) tries to enforce their definition (which, not all christians can obviously agree on) of what a marriage is on others in a legal aspect.
Do you not see that as a problem?

Yes I do.

Think about it this way, for as long as marriage has existed it has been DEFINED legally and religiously as between a man and a woman.

So then Who is seeking to "enforce their definition of what a marriage is on others".

That is the christian definition of marriage. Historically, "marriage" (the joining of two people with or without religious ceremony) has been around long before christianity has. Your idea, while honest, is nothing more than an assumption based upon your belief, not fact.

Marriage exists in every culture, country and religion, historically in ALL of those countries, cultures and religions marriage is virtually the same concept.

So I ask again who is seeking to "force" their view upon others?


toddytodd wrote: As I said prior numerous times, Christianity doesn't own the rights to the term marriage outside their religious belief. Christianity can't even come to a total agreement on what a marriage is. How can you expect others to agree with you, when not all of you can agree on it? I never said it did, marriage has been a nearly universal concept in some form for thousands of years. And for all of that time it has been between a man and a woman.

toddytodd wrote: Again, you try to circumvent the question at hand:
Why do religious groups seek to make gay marriage illegal?
People can not make something illegal which is not and never has been legal. Those seeking change and those "enforcing" views are those seeking to redefine marriage, not the large majority who seek to keep things the same while making sure legal protections are available to EVERYONE.

toddytodd wrote: What does two people getting married on one side of the planet have to do with your marriage or ability to get married?
How does it effect you?

I have stated my reasoning on this several times I feel no need to do it AGAIN. Please look back in the thread the other 3 or 4 times I have explained my position.

Quote: Marriage exists in every culture, country and religion, historically in ALL of those countries, cultures and religions marriage is virtually the same concept. Same concept means only that. Joining of two people together, with or without God's blessing.

Does it only take a man and a woman to enact a legitimate marriage in your eyes? Regardless of any affiliation with God?

Throughout history, society evolved (changed) and continues to do so. Even if every culture's concept of marriage were exactly the same, why not change it for our culture? Because something 'has always been that way' (which it hasn't, but for sake of argument), that doesn't mean it is right for our time and culture.
No one is wanting to remove the religious belief from marriage, only remove the religious legal demands that marriage be legally between a man and a woman. Churches can practice what every type of segregation, racial profiling, sexual discrimination they wish. But they shouldn't be allowed to promote these views with laws the govern the land (which included many different belief systems). To think they should be is a poor attempt at not only forcing their beliefs, but also to justify their faith pleasing to God. I am sure he is real happy with as way some of his flock's Shepard's have been behaving the last 20 to 30 years "in his name".

What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

Quote: People can not make something illegal which is not and never has been legal. Perhaps you should notify the politicians of this 'fact'.

Quote: Those seeking change and those "enforcing" views are those seeking to redefine marriage, not the large majority who seek to keep things the same while making sure legal protections are available to EVERYONE. Seeking to redefine your definition of marriage, perhaps. Your definition of marriage may not be correct. For the 'majority who seek to keep things the same while making sure legal protections are available to EVERYONE', it is only an attempt to further segregate and make gay people know that they are 'inferior' or less important because they need a 'special' term to live the same lives. That is nothing more of a 'save face' attempt of the religious people who think they own marriage and the term marriage. Going further, many of these people that perhaps reside in the 'majority' have already sought (and successfully) made any other form of marriage (civil unions, for example) also illegal.
Quote: I have stated my reasoning on this several times I feel no need to do it AGAIN. Please look back in the thread the other 3 or 4 times I have explained my position. You have stated your religious opinion (which is fine) but that wasn't my question, now was it? Another avoidance tactic.

Why does a religious person feel the need to have their view of marriage be made law?

How does this further the mission of Christ?

How can you expect others to agree with you, when not all of you can agree on it?

Your opinion is not based off of any facts that can show how two women getting married effects you directly. Likely because it is impossible to do so. Please prove me wrong.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: And what then are "objective" measureable metrics with which you "prove" homosexuality is moral, which permit the non religious the special ability to speak with NO source of moral authority?

Freedom of choice, the ability to decide your own expression of love, fairness, Free Will.

Love is moral, to deny expression of love that is benign, or beneficial is immoral.

I think it's a very clear cut case.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

To John: My love for humanity includes not willing to torture people for eternity if they don't believe in me. My kind of love is vastly superior to your gods. My concept of sin is not why I am atheist, I am atheist because the evidence for a god is not convincing. Many C'n's try to use the fear of Hell to make converts. It has been quite useful, especially during the Inquisition...)

[John]

Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

[John]

Quote: To John: My love for humanity includes not willing to torture people for eternity if they don't believe in me. My kind of love is vastly superior to your gods. My concept of sin is not why I am atheist, I am atheist because the evidence for a god is not convincing. Many C'n's try to use the fear of Hell to make converts. It has been quite useful, especially during the Inquisition...)


What you fail to understand is what Christianity teaches. God is the very essence of all things good...you have "good" in your life because GOD is blessing you in spite of your attitude. Not God is not a tyrant..and there will come a time were this type of world we live in will come to pass. The next will be about being in God's presence. This life is about choosing if you want to be there or not. God has not desire to force people to do what is against their will.

So.

If you choose to reject God He will give you your wish and not have any part of you. He will let you have your own will and your independence....

The problem is that everything that you think is from your own strength and good old fashion luck is really from God....take away God and all that is left is Hell.


So please….from this day forward if you want to talk to me about Hell, do so in an educated grown up fashion, and put away the childish misconceptions of devils with pitch forks and torture chambers.

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: And what then are "objective" measureable metrics with which you "prove" homosexuality is moral, which permit the non religious the special ability to speak with NO source of moral authority?

Freedom of choice, the ability to decide your own expression of love, fairness, Free Will.

Love is moral, to deny expression of love that is benign, or beneficial is immoral.

I think it's a very clear cut case.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You will excuse me if I don't see anything there which is either objective or measurable.

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'm not a sinner. There is no God, ergo, I don't sin. :wink:

That's the underlying logic behind why people convince themselves that God doesn't exist.
Explain yourself.

[mODULAR mAN]

John wrote:
So please….from this day forward if you want to talk to me about Hell, do so in an educated grown up fashion, and put away the childish misconceptions of devils with pitch forks and torture chambers.
I wonder where people got that idea? (How do you get "thrown into" something if it doesn't exist?

BTW, I'd look at your churches history. THEY were the ones who dipicted Satan in the way you are talking. Complete with horns, a tail and hooves.

Revelation 19:20 (NIV) (written by John, BTW)
20But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca, ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
Matthew 5:21-23 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 5:29
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.
Matthew 5:28-30 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 5:30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Matthew 5:29-31 (in Context) Matthew 5 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:27-29 (in Context) Matthew 10 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.
Matthew 18:8-10 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:15
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Matthew 23:14-16 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 23:33
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
Matthew 23:32-34 (in Context) Matthew 23 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:43
If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
Mark 9:42-44 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:45
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell.
Mark 9:44-46 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
Mark 9:47
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell,
Mark 9:46-48 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)



Not only do I not believe in pitch forks and Satan, but God, and angels and Nephims, or Global Floods, or Arks, or Exodus' or miracles or resurrections, etc...

And you are telling ME to grow up?
Stop being disingenuous.

[toddytodd]

John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

Perhaps you are correct. Same sex couples haven't married because they haven't been allowed to by societies standards and church pressure (in religious areas). However, as long as there have been gay people, there have been gay people in relationships, regardless of what you wish to call them. The whole "it's always been this way so we shouldn't change it' mindset is typical of many religious people.
Why we are at it, let's revert society back to the way it was when women were considered property and second class citizens.
Sounds ignorant, doesn't it?

Your use of the term oxymoron shows your prejudice, not sarcastic wit nor humor.

[Enoch]

John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron. That is wrong. Wiccan marriage has no prohibitions on two men or two women joining together.

[Shady]

John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

Ancient Greece had a great deal of homosexuality and I suspect you'd agree they were one of the most influential nations culturally ever.

[Gilbert1908]

Shady wrote: John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

Ancient Greece had a great deal of homosexuality and I suspect you'd agree they were one of the most influential nations culturally ever.

Perhaps you can provide the rich history of homosexual marriage celebrated in Greece.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Shady wrote: John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

Ancient Greece had a great deal of homosexuality and I suspect you'd agree they were one of the most influential nations culturally ever.

Perhaps you can provide the rich history of homosexual marriage celebrated in Greece.

A quick internet search found numerous links to your request, as well as Native American gay marriages, middle eastern, Chinese, Japanese, etc.

[mODULAR mAN]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Shady wrote: John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

Ancient Greece had a great deal of homosexuality and I suspect you'd agree they were one of the most influential nations culturally ever.

Perhaps you can provide the rich history of homosexual marriage celebrated in Greece.

I'm going check the claims, but here is an interesting bit of info if it's true:

Quote:
Taking a 'Husband'
A History of Gay Marriage

Copyright Rictor Norton. All rights reserved. This essay may not be republished without the permission of the author.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consulting my Grand Larousse – and the Oxford English Dictionary for good measure – I discover that the word "marry" comes from the Latin term for "a husband" (maritus), which comes from the Latin word for "a man" (mas, maris). The notion of "marriage" therefore doesn't seem to refer to "wives".



I should have realized this from listening to Francesco Cavalli's early 17th century opera La Calisto, in which the chaste and elderly nymph Linfea (played by a man) sings to the satyr Satirino (played by a woman) those immortal words:

Amore ti prego
che vago e gradito
mi trovi, mi trovi
un marito

That is:

Love find me a husband
who's madly attractive,
whose young and who's active.


Theoretically a person who gets "married" may take either a husband or a wife. But if we look at the history of "marriage" ceremonies, we will note that the most common meaning is, indeed, "to take a husband".
This provokes a number of conclusions: (1) a woman may "marry" a husband; (2) a man may "marry" a husband; and (3) a woman may not "marry" a woman. That is, lesbians cannot "marry" one another without violating the laws of linguistics, but gay men can.


Male Brides
So much for words. Let us now peruse the tarnished pages of history. Gay men seem to have frequently married one another throughout history. In fact, in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

The "bride" is a transvestite only for the duration of this ceremony, for in a deeply religious sense he has temporarily become the goddess at these holy rites. The other men sing a hymenal drinking-song, and then pair up amongst themselves to celebrate multiple nuptials by group sex (i.e. orgies). The following day the names of all the pairs are registered in legal records as formal marriages.

Many ancient writers, such as Strabo and Athenaeus, wrote that the Gauls or Celts commonly practised homosexuality. Aristotle wrote that the Celts "openly held in honor passionate friendship (synousia) between males". Diodorus Siculus wrote that "Although the Gauls have lovely women, they scarcely pay attention to them, but strangely crave male embraces (arrenon epiplokas). Resting on the ground on beasts' skins, they are accustomed to roll about with bedfellows (parakoitois) on either side." Later, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote that "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." Bardaisan of Edessa wrote that "In the countries of the north — in the lands of the Germans and those of their neighbors, handsome [noble] young men assume the role of wives [women] towards other men, and they celebrate marriage feasts."

http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm

[John]

Enoch wrote: John wrote: Quote: What was the religious ceremony for a legitimate marriage in the Old Testament?
New Testament?
In the Viking culture?
Japanese culture?
Hindu culture?
Wicca culture?
Aboriginal culture?
Native American Culture?

The ceremony is that a man and a woman come together and form a family unit.

It has never in all of history included a man and a man..or a woman and a woman.

It's a make believe thing "Gay marriage". It's an oxymoron.

That is wrong. Wiccan marriage has no prohibitions on two men or two women joining together.

Wiccans haven't been around very long now have they?

Do you believe that "Wiccans" were marrying homosexuals in the 1800's?