I saw this floating by on Facebook and laughed and laughed.
The is a rather silly thing, ain’t it?
First, anything else but a male and female wedding was unknown. I mean, it’s like a cat owning property. And let’s not fool ourselves, marriages for a very long time wasn’t really concerned with love, but with family names, property, status.
Update (in italics):
Jason Staples noted on Twitter that my data here may be in error. I will put it forth that others may know more about this, so I would enjoin them to provide the data. At the moment, a quick search reveals Cicero and Martial both alluding to same-sex marriage, but the context of the terms are to their enemies and may be nothing more than mocking diatribes. There is also Nero and the such, however, I would not argue that such things were taken as the marriage between a man and a woman for the purposes of State sanctioned marriage.
So, legitimately recognized marriage between two of the same sex wasn’t even thought of because it couldn’t fulfill the necessary duty to the State.
Yes, Jesus did talk about marriage, but it was the marriage of his day. To suggest that Jesus somehow dismissed all sorts of marriage but that between a male and a female is to argue a negative. Did he somehow limit marriage to only the marriage rules of his day?
If this was true, we would need to allow that Jesus only valued traditional marriage… An old husband buying a young – early teens – girl from her father. Wonder if this is acceptable?
Oh the silliness we raise when we pretend we speak for Jesus.
But, let’s pretend for a moment that same sex marriages were something the Romans did in the elite upper classes (as evidenced by a quick – don’t shoot me, Jim – search of the Wiki). Does the of speaking about a man and a woman in marriage affirm only heterosexual marriage? This is an argument that must first conceive that Jesus knew about homosexual marriages and then chose not to speak about them, two things we cannot prove.
This is does, by the way, suggest the Church must approve gay marriages or that gay marriages are morally allowable (I would always argue in a democratic society that such things are civilly allowable). But, to suggest that Jesus affirms anything by nothing speaking about something, or even speaking about something creates logical fallacies. After all, Young Earth Creationists suggests Jesus affirms Mosaic authorship of the Torah as well as a 6000 year old earth.