It still doesn't change the fact that I countered his claim that Rome did not recognize same sex marriages.
Whew, for people above the law, Romans had to recognize all sorts of things, like murdering people from the top.
The Roman records say Nero went through "all the formalities" of marrying a boy look-alike to his wife, whom he murdered. If you think that was Rome
recognizing the marriage as a marriage, that would be somewhat similar to the treatment of gay marriage by its opposition today. We're not taking participants to court if that's what you mean.
Since the writing of "Lex Rex" though, not even heads of state are supposed to be above the law. At least in western political thought.
That is the crux of the problem that is currently going on right now in the United States. There are many rights that have been turned into privileges by the government to gain control over people's lives. The right to marriage, to move about from place to place using whatever means, etc... have existed before the government did.
That's simply not the case. Consent of the community has historically been a major issue in marriage, for the preservation of human sexuality against immoral sexual relations. That's the reason for marriage to exist in the first place.
Do you love gays like Christ loves them? Are you willing to go the extra mile by denying your right to marriage and to enter into contracts in solidarity of these second class citizens? Every time I have asked this question in this thread it gets ignored because people are unable to face themselves in the mirror and see the reflection of themselves that runs contrary to what Christ taught.
I don't see gays as any different from other sinners like myself, no.
The extra mile is intended to benefit the recipient by converting sin into righteousness, but entrenching people in sin is no benefit to anyone. I can't convert sin into righteousness in this instance in the way my response does in going the extra mile.
Yes, because we all know that all gays are pedophiles.
Nobody's said that. I made a demonstration of the invalidity of the argument. You made an accusation that doesn't follow. You've followed one invalid argument with another. So how many wrongs do you think it will take to make a right?
There is no morality in law.
Then eliminate law. There's no reason for law if there's no morality in law.
"So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." Rom 7:12, ESV
If you use morality as your measuring tape then you are headed for trouble.
Like God's Word does?
Our system of laws was set up originally around the concept of rights and the infringement of them.
That's not the case. Our system of laws is set up around avoiding the infringement of rights, but laws themselves are based specifically on the power granted to the government by the Constitution. In point of fact, the original Constitution enumerated no rights at all. Amendments list rights the government could not infringe on, that were reserved to various groups, specifically the people or individuals.
It wasn't until the 1850's that people got married without the government being involved with their little permission slips called licenses. The entire reason behind licenses for marriage is based upon hatred of a minority group and to prevent these minorities from marrying whites.
That's again, not the case. Plus, it'd be kind of silly to say US laws must be based on the protection of rights, and that somehow US laws aren't based on the protection of rights in this case. The inconsistency in treatment points again to the fact that it's not reality.
Among the earliest laws in the colonies dealt with marriage.
I'd be hard pressed to associate myself and support marriage laws since they are a racist institution to begin with. I'm all for getting the government out of where it belongs.
Hint: they weren't attacking races, those early laws about marriage.
In point of fact race wasn't a concern then for marriage. Pocahontas even comes to mind.
Now, if you are basing your judgment of who gets rights based upon the Bible then you are definitely headed for trouble. This is a violation of the First Amendment's protections against laws being enacted based upon a religious tome, scripture, etc.... Establishment means to settled in fixed form such as laws, constitution, rule of government. I didn't write the definition for Establishment, but it was the one used by the founding fathers.
The First Amendment deals with establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise. There's no trouble implementing monogamy into law, for instance. Yet half the world has no problem with polygamy.
So implementing such a law doesn't strike at the First Amendment.
Actually, the Amendment speaks of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. Sexuality is part of life and liberty. God gave us this great gift of being intimate on the emotional, physical, and spiritual level that we enjoy it. That is part of how God created us.
Sexuality can be exploited and immoral and that concerns law.
Homosexuality does not put a unique spin on sexual sin, but it does leave little alternative to a God ordained sexual life if a person is trapped in homosexuality. 
