Same Sex Marriage Thread-Part 2

[Moonlit_Angel]

we could just call it marriage, like we always have, and let churches play the "no fags allowed" game if they so wish, because there's no law against being assholes no matter how you try to wrap it up in the ecstasy of sanctimony.

seems easier to me.

This is what I feel, too. Just that if people are insisting we do the civil union/marriage divide, the sort of idea yuppie mentioned is the one that would make the most sense if we were to do such a thing.

But yes, I agree, let's call it a marriage. Anyone who has a problem with that, well, guess they'll just have to learn to deal and get over their issues now, won't they?

 

[Irvine511]

I suppose that is an important question in some regards - that is, whether non-religious people really care what the union is called. I can only speak for myself, but if I were to get "married," frankly I would not give a damn what it was called. If semantics can placate the religious right in exchange for real legal strides for gay people, I would call it a victory.

But when you are gay, you wonder why it is that people would go to such lengths to deny you -- YOU -- the use of that word.

Of course rights are what's real and tangible, but it says something awful about is if we'd go and invent something entirely new simply to make it easier to deny the use of the word. Why make it so complicated? Or is genuine equality really that scary? Why do we need to emphasize and underscore the differences between straight and gay?

 

[digitize]

I'm a fan of letting the government handing out civil unions to whomever (as long as it is between two consenting adult humans... and I guess they probably mustn't be immediate relatives) and letting "marriage" be a purely cultural term with no government meaning. Let this debate continue as a cultural/religious/whatever one, let anyone who wants to call themselves married call themselves married, and people disapprove if they choose to (non-violently) disapprove. And don't make marriage necessarily require a civil union, or, of course, vice versa.

 

[Galeongirl]

How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.

I'd say it would work, though I'd love to see how the church will somehow find somethign wrong with this.

 

[BVS]

But when you are gay, you wonder why it is that people would go to such lengths to deny you -- YOU -- the use of that word.

But I think we do know why.

How would people feel about this, even if it has next to no possibility of ever happening: civil unions that carry all of the current legal and financial benefits of marriage are available to any two consenting adults. "Marriage" becomes a strictly religious institution that carries no legal force or benefits whatsoever - that is, the state only recognizes civil unions. This way, legal union equality is achieved, and the religious folks get to keep whatever traditional definition of marriage they feel so strongly about preserving.

The truth is you would think conservatives and libertarians would actually get behind this. You know those folks that have sole ownership to the Constitutions intents and definitions...

You would think of all people that they would understand that the line of church and state is already being blurred by government getting involved with marriage in the first place.

 

[iron yuppie]

But when you are gay, you wonder why it is that people would go to such lengths to deny you -- YOU -- the use of that word.

Of course rights are what's real and tangible, but it says something awful about is if we'd go and invent something entirely new simply to make it easier to deny the use of the word. Why make it so complicated? Or is genuine equality really that scary? Why do we need to emphasize and underscore the differences between straight and gay?

I understand and agree with everything you have said, but I guess my response would be that there is no practical way to legislate tolerance. What you can do is legislate equal rights and then wait for the tide to turn in favor of tolerance for same sex unions, as it already is in the process of doing.

If you remove the legal underpinning of marriage in favor of civil unions for everyone, then marriage becomes nothing more than a cultural relic. For me, the mystique of the term "marriage" is irrelevant, but then again I am not romantic or religious in any way. You seem to be saying that the terminology of the union would be important to you - do I have that right? I'm just genuinely curious.

 

[INDY500]

i think the discussion these past few posts have demonstrated that incest has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

 

[INDY500]

I believe I answered. I'll try again:

You'll have to be specific about which part of your post. Orientation? I accept that homosexuals are born with a sexual orientation towards the same sex. But one, orientation and behavior are two different things. Two, it still doesn't preclude society from deeming, to be in its best interest, the promotion of stable marriage between a man and a woman.

The Bible reference? Yes you can find instances of incest and polygamy in the Bible. Always involving a man and woman however. My point has never been that marriage laws and customs don't change. Only that the process matters. In a republic the morals and values of the citizens should be reflected in the laws. And in a democracy laws should be enacted with the consent of the governed, i.e. not by judges overturning the will of the people.

 

[BVS]

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

This is false, and I know that you SHOULD know better.

 

[cobl04]

There's a senate inquiry going on here right now, and so far we've had one man suggest it will lead to bestiality being legalised, one woman suggest it will lead to another stolen generation of children as they are forced out of straight homes and into gay ones, and one man say "if a boy has two mothers, who's gonna teach him to kick a football? Take him fishing? It's against nature!"

But one, orientation and behavior are two different things.

How can you say you're not homophobic and then say this? "I know you feel attracted to someone of the same sex, but control your devilish urges for God's sake!"

 

[Jive Turkey]

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

You don't know that. As a matter of fact, historians can't even agree on that. There is evidence of same sex marriages in ancient Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until around 340 AD that same sex marriage was outlawed in Rome and made punishable by death . Hmmm, I wonder what that roughly coincided with

 

[Jive Turkey]

Two, it still doesn't preclude society from deeming, to be in its best interest, the promotion of stable marriage between a man and a woman.

You're welcome to state why it would be in society's best interest...

The Bible reference? Yes you can find instances of incest and polygamy in the Bible. Always involving a man and woman however.

oooooooh! It's in the bible?!?! Why didn't you say so earlier? You've successfully converted me.
(Hilarious that you're supporting incest in the bible because it involved a man and a women. Again, statements like this completely reveal your bigotry and blind acceptance of the crap in the bible)

My point has never been that marriage laws and customs don't change. Only that the process matters. In a republic the morals and values of the citizens should be reflected in the laws.

So you've admitted that you think homosexuality is immoral. Your opinion is tainted and subjective

 

[INDY500]

society as a whole is the better for it.

And comments like this betray your deep seated bigotry

Comments like that betray your deep seated misanthropy.

So every culture and religion that has banned marriage between members of the same sex all these thousands of years did so, not because they thought "society as a whole the better for it," no, only because they were bigoted and ignorant. Like me.

Well bite me!!

 

[Jive Turkey]

Comments like that betray your deep seated misanthropy.

So every culture and religion that has banned marriage between members of the same sex all these thousands of years did so, not because they thought "society as a whole the better for it," no, only because they were bigoted and ignorant. Like me.

Well bite me!!

Not "every culture and religion" has banned members of the same sex from marrying. In case you didn't put the connection together, same sex marriage was outlawed in Rome about 40 years after the Edict of Milan and less than a decade after Constantine became the first Roman Emperor to be baptized. It's your bigoted and ignorant bible that implemented the bannings and executions. But to you, that's as far back as history goes

 

[Pearl]

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

As others have mentioned, there is evidence that SSM took place in ancient Rome. I believe some Native American tribes allowed it too.

As for incest, it is well known that the Egyptian pharoahs practiced it to maintain their bloodline, with dire consequences of course. King Tut's parents were brother and sister and he was physically stricken as a result. He was also married to his half-sister and they struggled to have children.

 

[Jive Turkey]

As for incest, it is well known that the Egyptian pharoahs practiced it to maintain their bloodline, with dire consequences of course. King Tut's parents were brother and sister and he was physically stricken as a result. He was also married to his half-sister and they struggled to have children.

European royals suffered greatly because of the practice too

 

[iron yuppie]

As others have mentioned, there is evidence that SSM took place in ancient Rome.

I keep seeing this raised, and I feel the need to say that SSM was not a part of ancient Roman culture. The one instance to which people usually point is Nero marrying his male slave, but the context there is important. What he did was not only a breach of the law but was also seen as an egregious break from normalcy. He also had the slave castrated so as to "make" him into a woman. The Romans had a very tolerant attitude toward homosexual relations and believed that genuine love could and did happen between two members of the same sex, as did the Greeks, but I have never seen any evidence that either culture actually allowed marriage between two men or two women.

Having said all that, I think that the history is completely irrelevant in this case and certainly should not be used as an argument against SSM. The Greeks and Romans predominantly saw marriage as a vehicle for legitimate childbirth so that property could be inherited with as little fuss as possible. Obviously the concept of marriage has become exceedingly more complex since then and should be treated within the context of the present day.

 

[Pearl]

European royals suffered greatly because of the practice too

True, but they married first-cousins rather than siblings, which is more dangerous genetically.

 

[maycocksean]

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

But of course you just contradicted yourself below:

The Bible reference? Yes you can find instances of incest and polygamy in the Bible. Always involving a man and woman however.

I think you're equating orientation with attraction/desire, and I think sexual orientation is a little more complex than a mere desire you can choose to act on or not act on. There's something deeply wrong with demanding absolute celibacy from a segment of the population (particularly if you're not Catholic). "Would you deny for others what you demand for yourself?"

My point has never been that marriage laws and customs don't change. Only that the process matters. In a republic the morals and values of the citizens should be reflected in the laws. And in a democracy laws should be enacted with the consent of the governed, i.e. not by judges overturning the will of the people.

Would you be okay if a judge overturned a voter approved allowance of same-sex marriage?

oooooooh! It's in the bible?!?! Why didn't you say so earlier? You've successfully converted me.
(Hilarious that you're supporting incest in the bible because it involved a man and a women. Again, statements like this completely reveal your bigotry and blind acceptance of the crap in the bible)

Not all of us view what's in the Bible as crap. I believe INDY was responding to my assertions--we're discussing this from the viewpoint of two people who happen to find the Bible meaningful--not trying to convert you. If you feel the Bible is crap, I respect your right to your opinion, but if you can't relate to that aspect of our conversation, the polite thing would be to leave it be.

 

[maycocksean]

I keep seeing this raised, and I feel the need to say that SSM was not a part of ancient Roman culture. The one instance to which people usually point is Nero marrying his male slave, but the context there is important. What he did was not only a breach of the law but was also seen as an egregious break from normalcy. He also had the slave castrated so as to "make" him into a woman. The Romans had a very tolerant attitude toward homosexual relations and believed that genuine love could and did happen between two members of the same sex, as did the Greeks, but I have never seen any evidence that either culture actually allowed marriage between two men or two women.

Having said all that, I think that the history is completely irrelevant in this case and certainly should not be used as an argument against SSM. The Greeks and Romans predominantly saw marriage as a vehicle for legitimate childbirth so that property could be inherited with as little fuss as possible. Obviously the concept of marriage has become exceedingly more complex since then and should be treated within the context of the present day.

I agree. I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Jive Turkey]

I keep seeing this raised, and I feel the need to say that SSM was not a part of ancient Roman culture. The one instance to which people usually point is Nero marrying his male slave, but the context there is important. What he did was not only a breach of the law but was also seen as an egregious break from normalcy. He also had the slave castrated so as to "make" him into a woman. The Romans had a very tolerant attitude toward homosexual relations and believed that genuine love could and did happen between two members of the same sex, as did the Greeks, but I have never seen any evidence that either culture actually allowed marriage between two men or two women.

Having said all that, I think that the history is completely irrelevant in this case and certainly should not be used as an argument against SSM. The Greeks and Romans predominantly saw marriage as a vehicle for legitimate childbirth so that property could be inherited with as little fuss as possible. Obviously the concept of marriage has become exceedingly more complex since then and should be treated within the context of the present day.

I admit that I had to google the names of any other emperors apart from Nero and came across Elagabalus, who may have also been transgendered. But simply by virtue of having created a law banning same sex marriages, and making that law retroactive, it would imply that same sex marriages existed and were accepted beforehand. It's much more difficult to find specific information on the personal lives of the general Roman populace. That said, homosexual relationships were commonplace and readily accepted before the law in the Theodosian code

 

[iron yuppie]

I admit that I had to google the names of any other emperors apart from Nero and came across Elagabalus, who may have also been transgendered. But simply by virtue of having created a law banning same sex marriages, and making that law retroactive, it would imply that same sex marriages existed and were accepted beforehand. It's much more difficult to find specific information on the personal lives of the general Roman populace. That said, homosexual relationships were commonplace and readily accepted before the law in the Theodosian code

Well, as a historian I would say that the argument from silence is always a dangerous one. I can't say definitively that SSM did not happen in Rome, but I can say that there is no law on record that mentions it in the pre-Christian era and that the cases of both Nero and Elagabalus were anomalies facilitated by their extreme power. That said, you are absolutely right that homosexual behavior was commonplace, accepted, and even fashionable in classical antiquity - among men and in a certain hierarchy, at least.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Not all of us view what's in the Bible as crap. I believe INDY was responding to my assertions--we're discussing this from the viewpoint of two people who happen to find the Bible meaningful--not trying to convert you. If you feel the Bible is crap, I respect your right to your opinion, but if you can't relate to that aspect of our conversation, the polite thing would be to leave it be.

If indy is going to throw out ridiculous factoids from the bible as if they somehow prove a point (all the incest and polygamy in the bible is of a heterosexual nature, therefor.... what exactly?), then he deserves to be called on it. Especially when his 'point' only shows what allowances the bible makes for heinous activities while vilifying homosexuality. Religious belief shouldn't be afforded any more respect than any other kind of belief, so when that point is clearly crap, I'm going to reference it as such.
I can respect that you don't think it's filled with crap, but I also wouldn't expect you to make such ridiculous declarations as the one above

 

[Jive Turkey]

Well, as a historian I would say that the argument from silence is always a dangerous one.

That's fair. But why make a retroactive law against something that doesn't already exist?

That said, seeing that you're a historian, I might have some cool stuff you'd like to look at
What kind of history is your specialty?

 

[maycocksean]

If indy is going to throw out ridiculous factoids from the bible as if they somehow prove a point (all the incest and polygamy in the bible is of a heterosexual nature, therefor.... what exactly?), then he deserves to be called on it.

Agreed. I just don't think believing the Bible is crap is a prerequisite for making that call. His point is equally ridiculous and contradictory even if you happen to believe that the Bible is the sacred Word of God.

Especially when his 'point' only shows what allowances the bible makes for heinous activities while vilifying homosexuality.

I would question whether the rise of secular society is the direct cause of our rejection of incest and polygamy. After all Christianity now rejects those same practices as well. Those practices were part of our common cultural history not something unique to fervent believers. The Bible is simply reflecting the society and culture it was written in, not describing the weird practices of a few fringe religious nuts.

Religious belief shouldn't be afforded any more respect than any other kind of belief,

Nor should it be afforded any less, I would argue.

 

[maycocksean]

That's fair. But why make a retroactive law against something that doesn't already exist?

Was there an actual law against SSM or was it just banning of homosexuality in general?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Agreed. I just don't think believing the Bible is crap is a prerequisite for making that call.

That's fair too. I let a bit of my personal bias slip in there

Nor should it be afforded any less, I would argue.

shit, I had written 'more or less', then when I reworded the sentence, forgot to include that (Freudian typing?) . My bad.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Was there an actual law against SSM or was it just banning of homosexuality in general?

I'll have to go back, but I think it was specifically SSM

 

[Irvine511]

Other than the fact that, until this generation, both have been excluded from marriage by all cultures, religions and governments.

Right. Unlike polygamy and statuatory rape.

What other cultural cues should we be taking from people who lived 2000 years ago when life was short, brutish, and harsh?

 

[iron yuppie]

That's fair. But why make a retroactive law against something that doesn't already exist?

I would have to look carefully at the language of the law. My understanding is that it was an injunction against homosexual behavior in general, which many bishops were pushing for at the time. But I could be wrong about that.

What kind of history is your specialty?

Roman social and cultural history. I actually did my MA on sexual ethics in the Roman Empire and early Christian movements. PhD topic is perceptions of suffering and pain in the Roman world.