Remarks on Same-Sex Marriage

[IMPress Polly]

As this issue is now before the courts in this country, thought I'd provide some of my thoughts on the subject, though I figure the essence should be fairly obvious:

We (the world in general) have changed the definition of marriage a number of times over the ages. Generally these changes have favored movement in the direction of more equality and fairness, e.g. from polygamy to monogamy. The legalization of same-sex marriage (which is pretty much an inevitable eventuality) simply continues that long-term historic trend. Conservative-minded people always seem to prefer privilege over equal treatment.

The argument that reproduction should be the basis for marriage and sex in general is particularly banal in my mind. There are implications there that go far beyond gay rights issues and indeed touch at the heart of whether women should have the liberty to not be pregnant all the time, with all the social implications of that (like being freed up to pursue careers as may be preferred).

[Peter1469]

I see where the trend is going. I really don't have anything invested in it any more. I think that gays are biting off more than they can chew, so to speak. They better start worrying about managing gay divorce now. :smiley:

[Chris]

Why the dig at conservatives? I'd consider myself conservative-minded and based on the principle of conserving liberty as an aspect of equality before the law believe government should get out of the business of marriage, e.g., DOMA, and leave the matter to society which seems to more and more not just tolerate but approve gays marrying whom they please.

I agree with the idea that this has been a long-term trend tradition in America.

[Mister D]

As this issue is now before the courts in this country, thought I'd provide some of my thoughts on the subject, though I figure the essence should be fairly obvious:

We (the world in general) have changed the definition of marriage a number of times over the ages. Generally these changes have favored movement in the direction of more equality and fairness, e.g. from polygamy to monogamy. The legalization of same-sex marriage (which is pretty much an inevitable eventuality) simply continues that long-term historic trend. Conservative-minded people always seem to prefer privilege over equal treatment.

The argument that reproduction should be the basis for marriage and sex in general is particularly banal in my mind. There are implications there that go far beyond gay rights issues and indeed touch at the heart of whether women should have the liberty to not be pregnant all the time, with all the social implications of that (like being freed up to pursue careers as may be preferred).

The only tradition trend that will continue is the mass leveling of cultures and the atomization of as many societies as liberal elites can reach until the system fails. It will. Secondly, polygamy will likely be legal soon enough. :wink:

Who makes that argument, Polly?

[Mainecoons]

Conservative-minded people always seem to prefer privilege over equal treatment.

You were doing pretty good until this sentence. I look at the liberal elite and they prefer privilege and don't mind sticking the rest of the bill for it, more than any conservatives I've ever met. This is a BS statement.

The core definition of marriage has never changed. It has always been heterosexual. You do understand that you are opening up the door to polygamy again, right? There is no legal basis for denying this "right" either under your rationale.

[Mister D]

You were doing pretty good until this sentence. I look at the liberal elite and they prefer privilege and don't mind sticking the rest of the bill for it, more than any conservatives I've ever met. This is a BS statement.

The core definition of marriage has never changed. It has always been heterosexual. You do understand that you are opening up the door to polygamy again, right? There is no legal basis for denying this "right" either under your rationale.
[/COLOR]

Exactly

[Chris]

The definition of marriage has changed a great deal. It used to be a social matter arranged by families, then love came along and it because a matter between individuals. Many legal definitions prohibiting gays were to scapegoat someone for social crisis, Leviticus, the marriage laws of the late Roman Empire, the first laws in the US against interracial marriage.


The core definition? Who defines this? No one, I say, society does.

[roadmaster]

polygamy Yes, most gays won't admit it but a good bit are bi. Next will be the right to marry a woman and a man or threesome. How can a person be bi and born that way? They can't and it has always been a choice.

[Private Pickle]

As this issue is now before the courts in this country, thought I'd provide some of my thoughts on the subject, though I figure the essence should be fairly obvious:

We (the world in general) have changed the definition of marriage a number of times over the ages. Generally these changes have favored movement in the direction of more equality and fairness, e.g. from polygamy to monogamy. The legalization of same-sex marriage (which is pretty much an inevitable eventuality) simply continues that long-term historic trend. Conservative-minded people always seem to prefer privilege over equal treatment.

The argument that reproduction should be the basis for marriage and sex in general is particularly banal in my mind. There are implications there that go far beyond gay rights issues and indeed touch at the heart of whether women should have the liberty to not be pregnant all the time, with all the social implications of that (like being freed up to pursue careers as may be preferred).

I think this takes the "Most Laughable Statement of the Year Award".

Why do you want tax the rich more % wise than anyone else? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you want to take firearms away from law obiding cititzens in order to combat criminals? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you rail against polygamy but advocate for equal marriage rights? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you want to take from people that have in order to pay for people that don't or even won't? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.

[Mister D]

I think this takes the "Most Laughable Statement of the Year Award".

Why do you want tax the rich more % wise than anyone else? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you want to take firearms away from law obiding cititzens in order to combat criminals? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you rail against polygamy but advocate for equal marriage rights? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.
Why do you want to take from people that have in order to pay for people that don't and even won't? Liberal ideas of equal treatment.

It's both sad and amusing but mostly the former. This is precisely why I'm a conservative. Someone has to do the thinking.

[Chris]

Maine, you posted this the other day on this topic:



Indeed, for millions of Americans, this society – which has eradicated Christianity from its public institutions and enshrined secularism in its place, which considers abortion a woman’s right, which is blasé about 53 million unborn children destroyed since Roe, which puts homosexual liaisons on the same moral plane as matrimony – is a society that has lost its moral bearings and is rapidly losing its mind.Which raises a serious separate issue.
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family? If one half of the nation sees the other as morally depraved, while the latter sees the former as saturated in bigotry, sexism and homophobia, how do we remain one united nation and one people?
Today, half of America thinks the country some of us grew up in was bigoted, racist, homophobic and sexist, while the other half sees this morally “evolving” nation as a society openly inviting the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and that is hardly worth preserving.
A common faith and moral code once held this country together. But if we no longer stand on the same moral ground, after we have made a conscious decision to become the most racially, ethnically, culturally diverse people on earth, what in the world holds us together?
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights?
How can they, when we bitterly disagree on what they say?
By throwing out the old morality and embracing a new morality on abortion and same-sex marriage, America tossed her sheet anchor into the sea. And from the turbulent waters we have entered – our illegitimacy rate is above 40 percent, and no Western nation has a birth rate that will keep its native-born alive in anything like the present numbers – America and the West may have set sail on a voyage from which there is no return.
[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helmet]
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/is-america-still-a-good-country/#lCJIM0r2wdRRXV1o.99


This is exactly why Hayek declared Why I am Not a Conservative (http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf) (keep in mind this was the 1940s, liberal them still referred to classical liberalism, not modern socialist liberalism):


It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.


Pat Buchanan is that sort of authoritarian conservative.

[Chris]

Yes, most gays won't admit it but a good bit are bi. Next will be the right to marry a woman and a man or threesome. How can a person be bi and born that way? They can't and it has always been a choice.

The way it was in Biblical times?

So there's another change in the definition of marriage.

[Adelaide]

It's my belief, and my country supports this, that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have all the benefits of such a union including in name, (as defining a union as anything other than marriage has been deemed discriminatory and not equal treatment under our constitution). If you don't like gay marriage, don't get "gay married", as Colbert phrased it.

I have no problem with people saying they are against it, but I think they are wrong. It's the right of all people to say what they believe but that doesn't mean I or others have to agree with it, and it seems like support for same-sex marriage is steadily on the rise in the United States.

[Private Pickle]

State's Rights issue. Let the people of each State decide what is best for their State. Don't like it? Move to a State that more closely resembles your moral values. That is Freedom.

/thread

[Private Pickle]

It's my belief, and my country supports this, that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have all the benefits of such a union including in name, (as defining a union as anything other than marriage has been deemed discriminatory and not equal treatment under our constitution). If you don't like gay marriage, don't get "gay married", as Colbert phrased it.

I have no problem with people saying they are against it, but I think they are wrong. It's the right of all people to say what they believe but that doesn't mean I or others have to agree with it, and it seems like support for same-sex marriage is steadily on the rise in the United States.

Misnomer.

There are only about 9 million gays in the States (<4%). To say people support them getting married is simply not true. A more accurate statement would be to say: Support for freedom of choice without a moral requirement or negative repercussions is on the rise in the States.

[Adelaide]

Yes, most gays won't admit it but a good bit are bi. Next will be the right to marry a woman and a man or threesome. How can a person be bi and born that way? They can't and it has always been a choice.

If I tried to kiss one of my many male gay friends, they would probably be both offended and amused. Similarly, if a male initiated physical intimacy with one of my many lesbian friends it would be the same thing. I believe it to be a flawed argument that homosexuals are actually bisexuals and they just don't know it won't admit to it.

Where is your information coming from?

[roadmaster]

The way it was in Biblical times?

So there's another change in the definition of marriage.

Biblical is one Man and one Woman and they become one. People will always choose other things against His teachings. I do not know a gay man that has not been with a woman also and I know many. Think what you want but it was never His definition of marriage.

[Adelaide]

State's Rights issue. Let the people of each State decide what is best for their State. Don't like it? Move to a State that more closely resembles your moral values. That is Freedom.

/thread

What if a couple married in a state that allows same-sex marriage moves into a state that does not have same-sex marriage? All sorts of legal implications.

This issue needs to be decided on federally, unfortunately. 95% of the time I agree that in the United States decisions should be state by state, but this is a situations where it just can't be done that way.

[roadmaster]

If I tried to kiss one of my many male gay friends, they would probably be both offended and amused. Similarly, if a male initiated physical intimacy with one of my many lesbian friends it would be the same thing. I believe it to be a flawed argument that homosexuals are actually bisexuals and they just don't know it won't admit to it.

Where is your information coming from? Because you don't know and I didn't say all, but I have yet to meet one but they are honest with me.

[Private Pickle]

What if a couple married in a state that allows same-sex marriage moves into a state that does not have same-sex marriage? All sorts of legal implications.

This issue needs to be decided on federally, unfortunately. 95% of the time I agree that in the United States decisions should be a state by state, but this is one of this situations where it just can't be done that way.

Then they are idiots who obviously don't think their marriage is more important than moving to that State.

Pushing moral codes (support for gay marriage is just as much a moral argument as those opposed) across all States, especially those whose populations disagree with it, is against the foundation of this country.

[Santa's Little Helper]

.

[Adelaide]

Because you don't know and I didn't say all, but I have yet to meet one but they are honest with me.

Because I don't know what?

Are you sure they are honest with you? You're basically saying all the religious reasons to not agree with homosexuality; if I were gay, I wouldn't be comfortable being open with you about it.

[Adelaide]

Then they are idiots who obviously don't think their marriage is more important than moving to that State.

Pushing moral codes (support for gay marriage is just as much a moral argument as those opposed) across all States, especially those whose populations disagree with it, is against the foundation of this country.

Okay - just so we are clear - everyone should be free and enjoy freedom, except homosexuals that need or want to move to another state?

[Private Pickle]

Because I don't know what?

Are you sure they are honest with you? You're basically saying all the religious reasons to not agree with homosexuality; if I were gay, I wouldn't be comfortable being open with you about it.

Again, arguments that suport gay marriage are also moral value based arguments. Just because one may not be religious when arguing this point doesn't mean they aren't pushing a moral value onto others.

[Chris]

State's Rights issue. Let the people of each State decide what is best for their State. Don't like it? Move to a State that more closely resembles your moral values. That is Freedom.

/thread

That certainly beats DOMA.

[Chris]

Biblical is one Man and one Woman and they become one. People will always choose other things against His teachings. I do not know a gay man that has not been with a woman also and I know many. Think what you want but it was never His definition of marriage.

Lamech, Abraham, on and on. Polygamy is a Biblical tradition.

Jesus didn't define marriage.

[Adelaide]

Again, arguments that suport gay marriage are also moral value based arguments. Just because one may not be religious when arguing this point doesn't mean they aren't pushing a moral value onto others.

I'm very religious, and my religious institution support same-sex marriage and has gay leadership. However, I don't think religion has anything to do with deciding whether everyone should have the same rights. In fact, religion has absoluely no place in the discussion unless the United States is suddenly a theocracy.

[Chris]

Again, arguments that suport gay marriage are also moral value based arguments. Just because one may not be religious when arguing this point doesn't mean they aren't pushing a moral value onto others.

Equality before the law, liberty, these are moral arguments. Not real sure how you push that on people, freedom can't be forced.

[roadmaster]

Because I don't know what?

Are you sure they are honest with you? You're basically saying all the religious reasons to not agree with homosexuality; if I were gay, I wouldn't be comfortable being open with you about it.
Lol why wouldn't they be comfortable with me? Yes, they tell me their stories. Is it because I am a Christian that you think they wouldn't? Never asked but we are all friends and I don't tell others. Would never put their names on here or spread anything about them to others that they know. Why would you try to kiss a gay guy?

[roadmaster]

Lamech, Abraham, on and on. Polygamy is a Biblical tradition.

Jesus didn't define marriage. You are wrong.

[Adelaide]

Lol why wouldn't they be comfortable with me? Yes, they tell me their stories. Is it because I am a Christian that you think they wouldn't? Never asked but we are all friends and I don't tell others. Would never put their names on here or spread anything about them to others that they know. Why would you try to kiss a gay guy?

Most of my male gay friends are pretty attractive. In fact, my one best friend is absolutely gorgeous. I always joke with him about us getting married if we're unattached at 30. I could have a trophy husband.

But seriously, no, I don't think it has anything to do with you being Christian. I have nothing against Christians. I just think that someone is more likely to be open about their sexuality if they feel they won't be judged - disagreeing with same-sex marriage for religious reasons seems a bit judgemental to me. I could be wrong, but I know more than one person who was basically disowned by religious parents for being gay.

[Chris]

You are wrong.

I understand you believe that. And I have no problem with you living according to your beliefs.

[Private Pickle]

I'm very religious, and my religious institution support same-sex marriage and has gay leadership. However, I don't think religion has anything to do with deciding whether everyone should have the same rights. In fact, religion has absoluely no place in the discussion unless the United States is suddenly a theocracy.

You're missing the point. You are arguing a moral based perspective...irregardless of if you're religious or not...irregardless of whether your religion supports same-sex marriage or not.

[Private Pickle]

Equality before the law, liberty, these are moral arguments. Not real sure how you push that on people, freedom can't be forced.

Those are not moral arguments...those are inherent rights. Freedom doesn't have to be forced. It just is. Exercising one's freedoms is an individual choice.

[Chris]

Those are not moral arguments...those are inherent rights. Freedom doesn't have to be forced. It just is. Exercising one's freedoms is an individual choice.

They are inherent because they are moral.

Let people choose for themselves.

[Private Pickle]

They are inherent because they are moral.

Let people choose for themselves.

But not moral arguments....

You aren't letting people choose for themselves if you mandate that choice Federally.

[roadmaster]

Most of my male gay friends are pretty attractive. In fact, my one best friend is absolutely gorgeous. I always joke with him about us getting married if we're unattached at 30. I could have a trophy husband.

But seriously, no, I don't think it has anything to do with you being Christian. I have nothing against Christians. I just think that someone is more likely to be open about their sexuality if they feel they won't be judged - disagreeing with same-sex marriage for religious reasons seems a bit judgemental to me. I could be wrong, but I know more than one person who was basically disowned by religious parents for being gay.

They are fully aware what I am and it's ok with them. I wouldn't disown my child if we disagreed on anything.

[Chris]

But not moral arguments....

You aren't letting people choose for themselves if you mandate that choice Federally.


But not moral arguments....

On the contrary, very moral arguments. Because people are naturally different it is moral to treat them equally before the law. This was the moral argument of the Declaration. It is the moral basis of natural law from time immemorial.



You aren't letting people choose for themselves if you mandate that choice Federally.

Exactly why DOMA will most likely be found unconstitutional.

I'm against federal government, even state government deciding the outcomes of social issues. Let society decide.

[Private Pickle]

On the contrary, very moral arguments. Because people are naturally different it is moral to treat them equally before the law. This was the moral argument of the Declaration. It is the moral basis of natural law from time immemorial.

Semantics. The argument ended once we recognized inherent rights.




Exactly why DOMA will most likely be found unconstitutional.

I'm against federal government, even state government deciding the outcomes of social issues. Let society decide.

That's what I said...

[Chris]

Semantics. The argument ended once we recognized inherent rights.



That's what I said...




Why should that moral argument end once natural rights were derived from natural law? If you mean stop arguing and start applying, then apply it to gays marrying.

[roadmaster]

I brought up a subject on another form on bestiality, has nothing to do with gays. A woman was killed by a certain dogs sperm. One member was into this and in my watch or section they had to be civil. It was hard for most people atheist or Christian ect to talk to him but the issue here in this thread is morals or judgment and the subject went on for many pages. You may see him as wrong but bashing him doesn't help. After I posted the thread a member PMed me saying he was like this. Have not nor will I ever say his name. I asked him not to tell others because I knew how most would take it. He didn't listen and was banned or just left, not sure, for telling others. The point is every one has their own ways of looking at things and what you call judging, I had to warn too many atheist to be civil. Ok, this guy was different but there are many out there like him.

[Chris]

Agree, it's absolutely essential to keep discussions civil. We each have our opinions, present them, back them up if you can, or argue other's, but as Goldwater once said, "To disagree, one doesn't have to be disagreeable."

[Santa's Little Helper]

Most of my male gay friends are pretty attractive. In fact, my one best friend is absolutely gorgeous. I always joke with him about us getting married if we're unattached at 30. I could have a trophy husband.

But seriously, no, I don't think it has anything to do with you being Christian. I have nothing against Christians. I just think that someone is more likely to be open about their sexuality if they feel they won't be judged - disagreeing with same-sex marriage for religious reasons seems a bit judgemental to me. I could be wrong, but I know more than one person who was basically disowned by religious parents for being gay.

they wouldn't be this hunky couple would they???

[Common]

It's my belief, and my country supports this, that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry and have all the benefits of such a union including in name, (as defining a union as anything other than marriage has been deemed discriminatory and not equal treatment under our constitution). If you don't like gay marriage, don't get "gay married", as Colbert phrased it.

I have no problem with people saying they are against it, but I think they are wrong. It's the right of all people to say what they believe but that doesn't mean I or others have to agree with it, and it seems like support for same-sex marriage is steadily on the rise in the United States.

There are those that are not for gay marriage for non religious reasons and dont see it as a civil right just like they dont see any other human abnormality as a right. Some view if you want to say being gay is from birth then its a birth defect as human were intended to have two different sexs for a reason.
Whether you believe in religion or darwinism homosexuality doesnt have a purpose or function in either.
Mr D stated my position far more eloquently and clearly than im capable of, two men being married is just ridiculous.

[Chris]

There are those that are not for gay marriage for non religious reasons and dont see it as a civil right just like they dont see any other human abnormality as a right. Some view if you want to say being gay is from birth then its a birth defect as human were intended to have two different sexs for a reason.
Whether you believe in religion or darwinism homosexuality doesnt have a purpose or function in either.
Mr D stated my position far more eloquently and clearly than im capable of, two men being married is just ridiculous.

Darwinism? Darwin would hardly recognize modern evolutionary theory, which does, btw, posit hypotheses explaining homosexuality as a function of reducing the size of a population.

[Private Pickle]

Why should that moral argument end once natural rights were derived from natural law? If you mean stop arguing and start applying, then apply it to gays marrying.

Thats what I said...

[Common]

Darwinism? Darwin would hardly recognize modern evolutionary theory, which does, btw, posit hypotheses explaining homosexuality as a function of reducing the size of a population.

I should have said evolution, thats what I was referring too chris

[Chloe]

In my opinion marriage is about two people who love each other deciding to lawfully commit the rest of their lives to each other. Marriage isn't primarily about procreation, it isn't a business decision, it isn't a political institution. It is two people committing to each other because they love each other. Whether it's two men making that commitment, or a man and a woman making it, the love between them is not any stronger or weaker because of their sex. I'm not married, I don't have a boyfriend and so i'm not about to get married, but i'm sure there are probably a number of married people on here and maybe even people in relationships that are considered marriage, and I would bet that nearly all of the married people on here and the people thinking about it would say that the number one reason they got married was because of love, and not biology or religion.

[Private Pickle]

In my opinion marriage is about two people who love each other deciding to lawfully commit the rest of their lives to each other. Marriage isn't primarily about procreation, it isn't a business decision, it isn't a political institution. It is two people committing to each other because they love each other. Whether it's two men making that commitment, or a man and a woman making it, the love between them is not any stronger or weaker because of their sex. I'm not married, I don't have a boyfriend and so i'm not about to get married, but i'm sure there are probably a number of married people on here and maybe even people in relationships that are considered marriage, and I would bet that nearly all of the married people on here and the people thinking about it would say that the number one reason they got married was because of love, and not biology or religion.

Why just two people?

[Chloe]

Why just two people?

because I said so

[Private Pickle]

because I said so

I defy your particular definition.

[Chloe]

I defy your particular definition.

I know. You think people should be able to marry anyone, anything, and any amount, right?

[Private Pickle]

I know. You think people should be able to marry anyone, anything, and any amount, right?

Well not anything....whatever or whoever they marry needs the right to consent and do so of able mind and proper age.

Why do you get to change the definition to your liking but not to the ideals of true freedom of choice?

[Mister D]

What a great illustration of how things unravel. Who could have seen that coming? Carry on.

[Chloe]

Well not anything....whatever or whoever they marry needs the right to consent and do so of able mind and proper age.

Why do you get to change the definition to your liking but not to the ideals of true freedom of choice?

Same reason you get to...It's fun to pretend we can change it. At least we agree that we both support gay marriage.

[Private Pickle]

Same reason you get to...It's fun to pretend we can change it. At least we agree that we both support gay marriage.

Don't put words in my mouth... I don't support gay marriage... I just don't think the government has any business legislating against it or offering benefits to those who marry a particular sex.

My definition is based on the freedom of choice. Nothing more. Yours is based on a subjective idea of what is right and wrong. Am I mistaken?

[Chloe]

Don't put words in my mouth... I don't support gay marriage... I just don't think the government has any business legislating against it or offering benefits to those who marry a particular sex.

My definition is based on the freedom of choice. Nothing more. Yours is based on a subjective idea of what is right and wrong. Am I mistaken?

Mine is also based on freedom of choice as well as what I believe is right.

[Dr. Who]

But not moral arguments....

You aren't letting people choose for themselves if you mandate that choice Federally.
But you are advocating allowing some people to dictate their particular morality to others. Since the US is not a theocracy, how can you dictate morality? It's not like every religion agrees on all moral tenets. There is only the law. People are free to be Athiests and completely immoral if they so choose, as long as they don't break the law. That is their Constitutional right. I'm sure orgies and S & M practices and some other sexual aberrations don't thrill the moral majority, but such acts between consenting adults are no longer unlawful (unless committed in public), because the law cannot arbitrarily impose morality in respect of acts that harm no one. Therefore, as same sex marriage will not cause harm to others, it should not be unlawful, hence it has become a Constitutional challenge.

[Private Pickle]

Mine is also based on freedom of choice as well as what I believe is right.

Not really. If you limit the definition of marriage to what you think is right then it has nothing to do with freedom of choice and everything to do with your moral code being pushed on everyone else.

[Private Pickle]

But you are advocating allowing some people to dictate their particular morality to others. Since the US is not a theocracy, how can you dictate morality? It's not like every religion agrees on all moral tenets. There is only the law. People are free to be Athiests and completely immoral if they so choose, as long as they don't break the law. That is their Constitutional right. I'm sure orgies and S & M practices and some other sexual aberrations don't thrill the moral majority, but such acts between consenting adults are no longer unlawful (unless committed in public), because the law cannot arbitrarily impose morality in respect of acts that harm no one. Therefore, as same sex marriage will not cause harm to others, it should not be unlawful, hence it has become a Constitutional challenge.

Ummm...yeah...that's what I said... I'm taking it a step further and saying marriage shouldn't have a numerical limit as well...

[Dr. Who]

Ummm...yeah...that's what I said... I'm taking it a step further and saying marriage shouldn't have a numerical limit as well...
It appeared that you were advocating that States should decide, which is where I disagree.

[Chloe]

Not really. If you limit the definition of marriage to what you think is right then it has nothing to do with freedom of choice and everything to do with your moral code being pushed on everyone else.

Well what's the point of having an opinion on something like this unless you'd hope that it could become reality one day?

[Mister D]

But you are advocating allowing some people to dictate their particular morality to others. Since the US is not a theocracy, how can you dictate morality? It's not like every religion agrees on all moral tenets. There is only the law. People are free to be Athiests and completely immoral if they so choose, as long as they don't break the law. That is their Constitutional right. I'm sure orgies and S & M practices and some other sexual aberrations don't thrill the moral majority, but such acts between consenting adults are no longer unlawful (unless committed in public), because the law cannot arbitrarily impose morality in respect of acts that harm no one. Therefore, as same sex marriage will not cause harm to others, it should not be unlawful, hence it has become a Constitutional challenge.

The segregationists said the same thing. Funny that.

[Private Pickle]

It appeared that you were advocating that States should decide, which is where I disagree.

I do advocate that States should decide...that isn't a quesiton of morality...

I don't advocate for the Federal Gov to legislate either for or against it.

[Private Pickle]

Well what's the point of having an opinion on something like this unless you'd hope that it could become reality one day?

Having an opinion is one thing...legislating opinions is something different all together... Separating your opinion from legislation is what this country is all about...

[Dr. Who]

I do advocate that States should decide...that isn't a quesiton of morality...

I don't advocate for the Federal Gov to legislate either for or against it.
But it is a Constitutional challenge, and that drops it in the lap of the Federal Government.

[Dr. Who]

The segregationists said the same thing. Funny that.
Please explain.

[Private Pickle]

But it is a Constitutional challenge, and that drops it in the lap of the Federal Government.

Elaborate please.

[Dr. Who]

Elaborate please.
The Defense of Marriage Act is Federal. One of the current US Supreme Court challenges involves the Constitutionality of DOMA as being essentially discriminatory.
The Supreme Court of The United States, in 1959 made it clear “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

The other challenge is to Prop 8 in California, but again challenges the Constitutionality of the measure, which still makes it a federal issue, by virtue the involvement of the Constitution. This action is proceeding on the basis that:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

[Peter1469]

It may be more likely that SCOTUS will find that DOMA violates the 9th and 10th Amendments.

[Chris]

Or, other side of that coin, that the Constitution simply doesn't so empower government to make such laws.

[Mister D]

Please explain.

Did you ever hear the slogan "you can't legislate morality"? Before it became a rallying cry for radical feminists it was both the slogan and position of segregationists and northern conservatives who opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act.

[Dr. Who]

Did you ever hear the slogan "you can't legislate morality"? Before it became a rallying cry for radical feminists it was both the slogan and position of segregationists and northern conservatives who opposed Title II of the Civil Rights Act.
No you can't legislate morality, you can only put laws into place that protect some people from other people's view of morality.

[Mister D]

No you can't legislate morality, you can only put laws into place that protect some people from other people's view of morality.

But the state has done so. In fact, the state has become rather fanatical about it.

[Private Pickle]

The Defense of Marriage Act is Federal. One of the current US Supreme Court challenges involves the Constitutionality of DOMA as being essentially discriminatory.
The Supreme Court of The United States, in 1959 made it clear “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival….”

The other challenge is to Prop 8 in California, but again challenges the Constitutionality of the measure, which still makes it a federal issue, by virtue the involvement of the Constitution. This action is proceeding on the basis that:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Just because a State law could be challenged in the Judicial Branch doesn't mean the Legislative Branch should step in and Legislate for everybody. I don't see your point.

[Dr. Who]

Just because a State law could be challenged in the Judicial Branch doesn't mean the Legislative Branch should step in and Legislate for everybody. I don't see your point.
Well let's suppose a State wished to deprive women of property rights. Would you expect the Legislative Branch not to be involved in the outcome?

[Private Pickle]

Well let's suppose a State wished to deprive women of property rights. Would you expect the Legislative Branch not to be involved in the outcome?

No. Judicial would given that law would be in direct contradiction to the 14th Amendment.

[Dr. Who]

But the state has done so. In fact, the state has become rather fanatical about it.
Yes and sometimes it turns out you're the bug and sometimes the windshield. Optimally the people should be the windshield and not the bug.

[Mister D]

Yes and sometimes it turns out you're the bug and sometimes the windshield. Optimally the people should be the windshield and not the bug.

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on the metaphor?

[Chris]

The windshield is big government, the bug the individual. But if enough individuals strike the windshield it will break.

http://i.snag.gy/eq09e.jpg

[Private Pickle]

The windshield is big government, the bug the individual. But if enough individuals strike the windshield it will break.

http://i.snag.gy/eq09e.jpg

Problem is more people are getting on the plank than leaving it...

[Chris]

Problem is more people are getting on the plank than leaving it...

More getting on would also take the state over the cliff.

http://i.snag.gy/Wlah1.jpg

[Dr. Who]

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate on the metaphor?

If the State supports the moral authority of the majority to the detriment of the minority, then the minority may be the bug. If the State simply supports the the equal treatment of people within the framework of the law, then the people become the windshield. This is true whether the moral majority is Liberal, Conservative or whatever, as majority opinions change far more frequently than legislation.

[Mister D]

If the State supports the moral authority of the majority to the detriment of the minority, then the minority may be the bug. If the State simply supports the the equal treatment of people within the framework of the law, then the people become the windshield. This is true whether the moral majority is Liberal, Conservative or whatever, as majority opinions change far more frequently than legislation.

But where do you fall? Should the state be legislating morality or not? That is precisely what it did in Title II and much else over the years.

[Dr. Who]

But where do you fall? Should the state be legislating morality or not? That is precisely what it did in Title II and much else over the years.
The State should not legislate morality. The State should create law that supports the Constitution. I think that things with far reaching ramifications such as marriage in whatever form, should not be within the purview of the State. Rights and Freedoms are defined under the Constitution, thus any interpretation therein should fall under Federal jurisdiction. You are otherwise left with an incoherent system of rights within the same country.

[Private Pickle]

The State should not legislate morality. The State should create law that supports the Constitution. I think that things with far reaching ramifications such as marriage in whatever form, should not be within the purview of the State. Rights and Freedoms are defined under the Constitution, thus any interpretation therein should fall under Federal jurisdiction. You are otherwise left with an incoherent system of rights within the same country.

The system is defined by the Constitution and the Feds should do nothing other than to enforce and protect that system...not to interpret it via legislation. That is what State's Rights are all about...

[Dr. Who]

The system is defined by the Constitution and the Feds should do nothing other than to enforce and protect that system...not to interpret it via legislation. That is what State's Rights are all about...
The Constitution was created to ensure the rights of all of the people irrespective of which State in which they reside. It does not fall to the States to selectively interpret the Constitution according to voter wishes. If the Constitution was created to define the rights of the People, then it is up to the elected representatives to either amend the Constitution or for the Supreme Court to interpret the existing definitions.

[Chris]

The Constitution was created to ensure the rights of all of the people irrespective of which State in which they reside. It does not fall to the States to selectively interpret the Constitution according to voter wishes. If the Constitution was created to define the rights of the People, then it is up to the elected representatives to either amend the Constitution or for the Supreme Court to interpret the existing definitions.

Not initially, that didn't happen until incorporation of certain rights by the 14th amendment and subsequent court decisions based on it.

But still, the Constitution only regulates government, not the people, with regard to rights.

[Alif Qadr]

I see where the trend is going. I really don't have anything invested in it any more. I think that gays are biting off more than they can chew, so to speak. They better start worrying about managing gay divorce now. :smiley:
:smiley_ROFLMAO:

[Alif Qadr]

Why the dig at conservatives? I'd consider myself conservative-minded and based on the principle of conserving liberty as an aspect of equality before the law believe government should get out of the business of marriage, e.g., DOMA, and leave the matter to society which seems to more and more not just tolerate but approve gays marrying whom they please.

I agree with the idea that this has been a long-term trend tradition in America.

Is the approval genuine or is it suggested through media, television programming (it is called programming for a reason)?

[Alif Qadr]

The definition of marriage has changed a great deal. It used to be a social matter arranged by families, then love came along and it because a matter between individuals. Many legal definitions prohibiting gays were to scapegoat someone for social crisis, Leviticus, the marriage laws of the late Roman Empire, the first laws in the US against interracial marriage.


The core definition? Who defines this? No one, I say, society does.

Going by Biblical and Qur'anic definition, marriage is between man and woman. Marriage is supposed to be a natural extension of the unification, or oneness of man and woman. Homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomena as far as history is concerned.
I go by the original intent for the existence of behaviors, situations and circumstances. Marriage as defined by the unification of man and woman has been in existence for aeons, while homosexual relations have only been in existence for about six millennial cycles.

[Alif Qadr]

Yes, most gays won't admit it but a good bit are bi. Next will be the right to marry a woman and a man or threesome. How can a person be bi and born that way? They can't and it has always been a choice.

England has already officiated bestial marriage or marriage between a man and a beast of burden.

[Alif Qadr]

It's both sad and amusing but mostly the former. This is precisely why I'm a conservative. Someone has to do the thinking.

Ah, muHaafiz :wink:

[Alif Qadr]

The following defines and makes clear that what is taking place is the "speaking in tongues". This was and still is used to destroy societies and civilizations.


Indeed, for millions of Americans, this society – which has eradicated Christianity from its public institutions and enshrined secularism in its place, which considers abortion a woman’s right, which is blasé about 53 million unborn children destroyed since Roe, which puts homosexual liaisons on the same moral plane as matrimony – is a society that has lost its moral bearings and is rapidly losing its mind.Which raises a serious separate issue.
If we Americans cannot even agree on what is right and wrong and moral and immoral, how do we stay together in one national family? If one half of the nation sees the other as morally depraved, while the latter sees the former as saturated in bigotry, sexism and homophobia, how do we remain one united nation and one people?
Today, half of America thinks the country some of us grew up in was bigoted, racist, homophobic and sexist, while the other half sees this morally “evolving” nation as a society openly inviting the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah and that is hardly worth preserving.
A common faith and moral code once held this country together. But if we no longer stand on the same moral ground, after we have made a conscious decision to become the most racially, ethnically, culturally diverse people on earth, what in the world holds us together?
The Constitution, the Bill of Rights?
How can they, when we bitterly disagree on what they say?
By throwing out the old morality and embracing a new morality on abortion and same-sex marriage, America tossed her sheet anchor into the sea. And from the turbulent waters we have entered – our illegitimacy rate is above 40 percent, and no Western nation has a birth rate that will keep its native-born alive in anything like the present numbers – America and the West may have set sail on a voyage from which there is no return.

[Alif Qadr]

What if a couple married in a state that allows same-sex marriage moves into a state that does not have same-sex marriage? All sorts of legal implications.

This issue needs to be decided on federally, unfortunately. 95% of the time I agree that in the United States decisions should be state by state, but this is a situations where it just can't be done that way.

My response to this scenario is: if they move to a state that does not recognize homosexual coupling, they are only looking for problems which is part the motivation of Leftist/Liberalism to begin with.

[Chris]

Going by Biblical and Qur'anic definition, marriage is between man and woman. Marriage is supposed to be a natural extension of the unification, or oneness of man and woman. Homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomena as far as history is concerned.
I go by the original intent for the existence of behaviors, situations and circumstances. Marriage as defined by the unification of man and woman has been in existence for aeons, while homosexual relations have only been in existence for about six millennial cycles.
Where in these texts do we find such definitions and what do personal beliefs have to do with political freedoms?

Homosexuality is as old as man. Evidence? Leviticus dictates against it in ritual ceremonies--it had to exist to make ritual rules against it.

[Chris]

The following defines and makes clear that what is taking place is the "speaking in tongues". This was and still is used to destroy societies and civilizations.

[/FONT][/I][/COLOR]

Needs reference, please.

[Kindness]

Going by Biblical and Qur'anic definition, marriage is between man and woman.

This is understandable, but irrelevant to the law in the United States. The USA is a secular nation, and as such cannot base legislation on religious grounds as there is a constitutional (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797) separation between religion and state. As such, it is a violation of civil rights to deny civil marriage to a certain class of individuals based upon their sexual orientation, as the only reason for doing that is religion.

[Mainecoons]

On what Constitutional basis is the state involved in marriage at all?

BTW, regards your tag line. socialism relies on force and compulsion in an attempt, always failed in the past, to impose behaviors which are contrary to human nature. Hence, socialism and liberty are incompatible at the core.

[Chris]

"On what Constitutional basis is the state involved in marriage at all?"

Absolutely none.

DOMA is unconstitutional.

[Alif Qadr]

This is understandable, but irrelevant to the law in the United States. The USA is a secular nation, and as such cannot base legislation on religious grounds as there is a constitutional (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797) separation between religion and state. As such, it is a violation of civil rights to deny civil marriage to a certain class of individuals based upon their sexual orientation, as the only reason for doing that is religion.

I was giving the definition of marriage and I did not say that it is relevant in the United States although some would state that it is completely relevant in the United States being that the place were the definition that is currently used for marriage is related to the Bible.
What is a civil right and where do said civil rights come from? The last statement is rhetorical being that civil rights come from government which is not the based or origin of rights of people. The rights of people are as it is stated, "endowed by their Creator" which is a direct reference to Biblical texts, which negates the secularism of the Constitution for the United States which is supposed to be the basis of all laws legislated within the borders and jurisdiction of these United States.
This notion of a secular society is clear mythology and has no basis in reality.

The above response relates to my statement of speaking in tongues, or using different interpretations of clear and defined texts which does nothing but cause confusion where they should be known. In this resent quest to confuse set definitions which are the basis of society, a clear agenda to push forth the agendas, more division is inevitable. Unfortunate but nonetheless inevitable.
As to the Treaty if Tripoli, it clearly states that there is no desire to have conflict with Islam and has nothing to do with secularism. It was a treaty stating emphatically that the federal government of the United States has no conflict with Islam, which since then has been ignored.

[Alif Qadr]

Where in these texts do we find such definitions and what do personal beliefs have to do with political freedoms?

Homosexuality is as old as man. Evidence? Leviticus dictates against it in ritual ceremonies--it had to exist to make ritual rules against it.
Genesis 2: 24 (24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.)

Surat 4 An Nisa' (Neesa) defines the marriage customs in Islam.

These are where I get my definition of marriage from.


"We also sent Lut: He said to his people: Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds. And his people gave no answer but this: they said, "Drive them out of your city: these are indeed men who want to be clean and pure!"" (Qur'an 7:80-82)
This is clear evidence that before the cities that were destroyed, the practice of homosexuality was foreign even to the eyes of the righteous.


"Of all the creatures in the world, will ye approach males, And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay, ye are a people transgressing (all limits)! They said: "If thou desist not, O Lut! thou wilt assuredly be cast out!" He said: "I do detest your doings:" "O my Lord! deliver me and my family from such things as they do!" So We delivered him and his family,- all Except an old woman who lingered behind. But the rest We destroyed utterly. We rained down on them a shower (of brimstone): and evil was the shower on those who were admonished (but heeded not)! Verily in this is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 26:165-175)

[Chris]

Genesis 2: 24 (24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.)

Surat 4 An Nisa' (Neesa) defines the marriage customs in Islam.

These are where I get my definition of marriage from.


This is clear evidence that before the cities that were destroyed, the practice of homosexuality was foreign even to the eyes of the righteous.




Genesis 2: 24 (24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.)

Not a definition of marriage.

No comment on Islamic beliefs.

You didn't explain "what do personal beliefs have to do with political freedoms?"

[Alif Qadr]

Not a definition of marriage.

No comment on Islamic beliefs.

You didn't explain "what do personal beliefs have to do with political freedoms?"

Personal beliefs are individual just as political freedoms. Each is individually based and has nothing to do with the notion of collectivist norms, which often conflict with an individuals personal beliefs. In stating this, most people often go with their personal beliefs when the collective norm contradicts said beliefs.

As far a definitions are concerned, the very definition of marriage has its foundation, fundamental meaning and basis in scriptural texts, i.e., "a man must leave his mother and father to seek a wife"; marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the same accepted definition in Islam; marriage is between man and woman. Such is explicit as well as implicit in the ayats that I posted from Taurat and Al Khitaab.

[Cigar]

Point Made :grin:

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/HorseD/2013/HorseD20130402_low.jpg

[Chris]

Personal beliefs are individual just as political freedoms. Each is individually based and has nothing to do with the notion of collectivist norms, which often conflict with an individuals personal beliefs. In stating this, most people often go with their personal beliefs when the collective norm contradicts said beliefs.

As far a definitions are concerned, the very definition of marriage has its foundation, fundamental meaning and basis in scriptural texts, i.e., "a man must leave his mother and father to seek a wife"; marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the same accepted definition in Islam; marriage is between man and woman. Such is explicit as well as implicit in the ayats that I posted from Taurat and Al Khitaab.

If all you're arguing is you personal belief is this or that I have no argument with it, you should have the right, as anyone else, to believe what you will, and exercise that so long as you do no harm, which would include interfering with other's equal rights.

My argument is with the state, especially the federal government dictating what marriage is.


I also accept that you interpret scripture your way. I don't, re the Bible, not familiar enough with the Koran. Other than to say that those do not define tradition, society does that.

[Alif Qadr]

If all you're arguing is you personal belief is this or that I have no argument with it, you should have the right, as anyone else, to believe what you will, and exercise that so long as you do no harm, which would include interfering with other's equal rights.

My argument is with the state, especially the federal government dictating what marriage is.


I also accept that you interpret scripture your way. I don't, re the Bible, not familiar enough with the Koran. Other than to say that those do not define tradition, society does that.

In Islam, tradition that is followed is supposed to be in Holy Qur'an and the truth of the books revealed before Al Khitaab but I do understand and realize that traditions in the Occidental world are often dictated by that which suits agendas which is one of the major reasons why there are frequent paradigm shifts in said societies.
As for government dictates when it comes to the federal government, I do agree that it is not the business of the federal government do engage in such behavior, but it has and will continue to do so, unfortunately. It has done so on several occasions, including in the area of marriage. Polygamy is one such incident.

[Chris]

In Islam, tradition that is followed is supposed to be in Holy Qur'an and the truth of the books revealed before Al Khitaab but I do understand and realize that traditions in the Occidental world are often dictated by that which suits agendas which is one of the major reasons why there are frequent paradigm shifts in said societies.
As for government dictates when it comes to the federal government, I do agree that it is not the business of the federal government do engage in such behavior, but it has and will continue to do so, unfortunately. It has done so on several occasions, including in the area of marriage. Polygamy is one such incident.

What government does and what it ought to is the subject of all political discussion.

[Chris]

To be clear if Muslims want to follow their beliefs and practices, they should without government interference. Or Christians. Or businessmen. Or people on my street. Government shouldn't interfere.

[Dr. Who]

England has already officiated bestial marriage or marriage between a man and a beast of burden.
Not legally. Perhaps a private non legal ceremony. Same sex marriage is not yet legal in the UK.

[Kindness]

The Treaty of Tripoli was intended to show that the fledgling US had no conflict with Muslim nations, but it also established a wall of separation between church and state. It reads:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims)],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammedan)] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

(emphasis mine)

[simpsonofpg]

there is no such thing as a same sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Other unions need their own name but don't use marriage

[Captain Obvious]

there is no such thing as a same sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Other unions need their own name but don't use marriage

Keep a bottle of white-out handy.

[Mister D]

Keep a bottle of white-out handy.

And some earplugs if you marry more than one woman. :smiley:

[Chris]

there is no such thing as a same sex marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Other unions need their own name but don't use marriage

Agree, there is no such thing as "same-sex marriage", only marriage, be it man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, man and women, woman and men, men and women.

You can control the language.

[Seriy]

God warns dealing with homosexuals in the Bible. We can't ignore Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27,32, Jude 1:7, Second Peter 2:12-13. Any nation who says yes to gay marriage will always be the same as Sodom and Gomorrah.

[Peter1469]

God warns dealing with homosexuals in the Bible. We can't ignore Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27,32, Jude 1:7, Second Peter 2:12-13. Any nation who says yes to gay marriage will always be the same as Sodom and Gomorrah.


He was warning against humans mixing with the fallen angles. The corruption of the seed of man.

[Kalkin]

What if a couple married in a state that allows same-sex marriage moves into a state that does not have same-sex marriage? All sorts of legal implications.

This issue needs to be decided on federally, unfortunately. 95% of the time I agree that in the United States decisions should be state by state, but this is a situations where it just can't be done that way.
Meh. What if I have a medical weed card and move to a state where it's illegal?

[Chris]

God warns dealing with homosexuals in the Bible. We can't ignore Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27,32, Jude 1:7, Second Peter 2:12-13. Any nation who says yes to gay marriage will always be the same as Sodom and Gomorrah.

God does not warn about gays, seriy, we've been through this. You really shouldn't add your interpretation to the Bible, it's blasphemous.

[Captain Obvious]

God does not warn about gays, seriy, we've been through this. You really shouldn't add your interpretation to the Bible, it's blasphemous.

Just like Islamofascists - it's not what God wants, it's what the individual citing the book wants.

[Chris]

Just like Islamofascists - it's not what God wants, it's what the individual citing the book wants.

Exactly, the same sort of sordid politicization of religion.

[Kalkin]

Yes and sometimes it turns out you're the bug and sometimes the windshield. Optimally the people should be the windshield and not the bug.
I drive the car.

[Kalkin]

On what Constitutional basis is the state involved in marriage at all?

BTW, regards your tag line. socialism relies on force and compulsion in an attempt, always failed in the past, to impose behaviors which are contrary to human nature. Hence, socialism and liberty are incompatible at the core.
Right on.

[Alif Qadr]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mainecoons http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=259901#post259901)
On what Constitutional basis is the state involved in marriage at all?

BTW, regards your tag line. socialism relies on force and compulsion in an attempt, always failed in the past, to impose behaviors which are contrary to human nature. Hence, socialism and liberty are incompatible at the core.


My contention exactly. The Constitution for the United States makes no mention of marriage at all, being that it is NOT a federal matter. The decision was left to the states and individuals, which makes the discussion on so-called gay marriage a non-governmetal issue in the federal sense.
I also agree that forcing everyone to recognize the coupling of homosexuals is not only unnatural but authoritarian as well. I will even state the same for portions of DOMA being that it defines marriage as: "the union between one man and one woman". This definition is not what is stated in Taurat nor Al Khitaab, being that women tend to outnumber men due to the circumstances of genetics and current historical trends.
Multiple wives are acceptable but not advised in Al Khitaab if a fellow believer has fallen in battle, has died due to illness or otherwise and one of the men decides to take on the responsibility of the falled believer as caretaker of his former wife and/or children. It is also allowable for the prophets and messengers to take on multiple wives to increase his presence in future generations.

With this stated, all of the discussion about the acceptance of behaviors that are degenerate, amoral and immoral is a sign of the decline of the mentality of people as a whole and the guideposts or leadership of the several societies. Inordinancy has ways of solving itself.

[Common]

People say the govt shouldnt be involved in this and that, then when theres something they want, they want the govt or the courts to give it to them.
Govt in the USA is never going away not our lifetimes anyway.

[Seriy]

God does not warn about gays, seriy, we've been through this. You really shouldn't add your interpretation to the Bible, it's blasphemous.
You reject Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, Jude 1:7. God indeed is against GLBT.

[Peter1469]

When the US was founded marriage really wasn't in the purview of any level of government. It was a religious institution. Over time, the government got involved and gave benefits* to married people. It is these benefits that gay people want. Under the Equal Protection Clause, we should craft a way for them to get these benefits. As I have said before, I wouldn't change the definition of an ancient word, but I would allow these benefits for committed gay couples. The term civil union comes to mind. Or better yet, remove government from it all together and allow contract law to govern these issues.

* With regards to federal income taxes, if both in the marriage work, they actually pay more taxes than if they were not married.

[Greenridgeman]

You reject Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, Jude 1:7. God indeed is against GLBT.


I feel it would have rated a commandment, had it been that important to God.

As for gay marriage, I think if a church wants to do it, fine. Marriage should be for churches, under the doctrine of the church, civil unions should be about childraising, responsibility,disposal of mutually accrued assets, etc.

The whole issue could be solved by seperating the two matters.

Nothing could them impede a couple, or a covey, for that matter, from chosing one or both options, if a church would have them.

[Seriy]

In fact the institution of marriage is a religious institution. God designed marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime. As we go back to the Book of Genesis in the KJV Bible, it states that The Lord in the beginning created a man and a woman who were Adam and Eve. God made Eve out of Adam's rib, so they became no longer twain but as one flesh. God never made Adam and Steve, Eve and Susan. Indeed God brought curses on those who dared to rebel against His Nature. Sodom and Gomorrah were good examples in Jude 1:7 and in Genesis 19:1-29. We can't outsmart God.

[Peter1469]

In fact the institution of marriage is a religious institution. God designed marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime. As we go back to the Book of Genesis in the KJV Bible, it states that The Lord in the beginning created a man and a woman who were Adam and Eve. God made Eve out of Adam's rib, so they became no longer twain but as one flesh. God never made Adam and Steve, Eve and Susan. Indeed God brought curses on those who dared to rebel against His Nature. Sodom and Gomorrah were good examples in Jude 1:7 and in Genesis 19:1-29. We can't outsmart God.


God really wanted an arm and a leg to make woman for Adam. But Adam asked what he could get for just a rib..... :shocked:

[Greenridgeman]

"God designed marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime"


That is how it should be, anything the government gets involved in should be called civil union, and be nothing more than a contract among consenting individuals.

People could have civil union to take care of civil issues, and get married in any church that would have them, if they wanted same sex, group, multi-species or any other kind of "alternative" to customary marriage.

[Adelaide]

"God designed marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime"


That is how it should be, anything the government gets involved in should be called civil union, and be nothing more than a contract among consenting individuals.

People could have civil union to take care of civil issues, and get married in any church that would have them, if they wanted same sex, group, multi-species or any other kind of "alternative" to customary marriage.

Calling it a civil union is discriminatory in name.

[Peter1469]

Calling it a civil union is discriminatory in name.

Why? Isn't the point to get the benefits offered by the state? If there was no legal benefits to marriage would this be an issue?

[Adelaide]

Why? Isn't the point to get the benefits offered by the state? If there was no legal benefits to marriage would this be an issue?

It's about equality. If you call it a civil union you are discriminating against same-sex couples by using a term that isn't marriage. This is something our Supreme Court had to determine violated our constitution and charter. Making a distinction between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is as discriminating as not allowing same-sex marriage, regardless of whether you're granting the exact same benefits. The name matters.

[Peter1469]

It's about equality. If you call it a civil union you are discriminating against same-sex couples by using a term that isn't marriage. This is something our Supreme Court had to determine violated our constitution and charter. Making a distinction between same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage is as discriminating as not allowing same-sex marriage, regardless of whether you're granting the exact same benefits. The name matters.

I thought, in the US at least, that the issue was the legal protections. I understand that.

[Chris]

People say the govt shouldnt be involved in this and that, then when theres something they want, they want the govt or the courts to give it to them.
Govt in the USA is never going away not our lifetimes anyway.

Yes, there are many who advocate minimal, constitutional government...except on certain issues when they want maximum, intrusive government.

A government that grows too big will collapse because it's unsustainable.

[Chris]

You reject Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:24-27, Jude 1:7. God indeed is against GLBT.

There you go again, making things up. I accept those, but they do not say what you make them up to say.

[Chris]

When the US was founded marriage really wasn't in the purview of any level of government. It was a religious institution. Over time, the government got involved and gave benefits* to married people. It is these benefits that gay people want. Under the Equal Protection Clause, we should craft a way for them to get these benefits. As I have said before, I wouldn't change the definition of an ancient word, but I would allow these benefits for committed gay couples. The term civil union comes to mind. Or better yet, remove government from it all together and allow contract law to govern these issues.

* With regards to federal income taxes, if both in the marriage work, they actually pay more taxes than if they were not married.

I think the first time government got involved was to enact anti-miscegenation laws.

[Peter1469]

I think the first time government got involved was to enact anti-miscegenation laws.

I think laws against marrying close relatives were the first in the US.

[Chris]

In fact the institution of marriage is a religious institution. God designed marriage between one man and one woman for one lifetime. As we go back to the Book of Genesis in the KJV Bible, it states that The Lord in the beginning created a man and a woman who were Adam and Eve. God made Eve out of Adam's rib, so they became no longer twain but as one flesh. God never made Adam and Steve, Eve and Susan. Indeed God brought curses on those who dared to rebel against His Nature. Sodom and Gomorrah were good examples in Jude 1:7 and in Genesis 19:1-29. We can't outsmart God.

No it's not. Marriage existed before the Bible. You're misreading the Bible, trying to outsmart God.

[Chris]

I think laws against marrying close relatives were the first in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage#United_States suggests such laws arose after the Civil War as well.

[Adelaide]

I thought, in the US at least, that the issue was the legal protections. I understand that.

Here is the preamble to Bill C-38 (Civil Marriage Act):

"WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;"

Using a name other than marriage violated our charter's dedicated to equality under the law - the compromise was to make all marriages a civil marriage. You can have a religious or civil ceremony (and some religious institutions marry same sex couples and many opposite sex couples elect to have a civil ceremony) but in the end and legally speaking all marriages are civil marriages.

[Peter1469]

Here is the preamble to Bill C-38 (Civil Marriage Act):

"WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity, in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;"

Using a name other than marriage violated our charter's dedicated to equality under the law - the compromise was to make all marriages a civil marriage. You can have a religious or civil ceremony (and some religious institutions marry same sex couples and many opposite sex couples elect to have a civil ceremony) but in the end and legally speaking all marriages are civil marriages.

That is perfectly understandable when the state sanctions all marriages.

My marriage certainly was not a religious one.

[Adelaide]

That is perfectly understandable when the state sanctions all marriages.

My marriage certainly was not a religious one.

True - marriage is a federal power here, but the decision was mostly forced by provinces declaring the previous laws unconstitutional. It was a really interesting legal and constitutional issue, which might be interesting for Americans to read about. Alberta almost used the notwithstanding clause to get out of it as they were so opposed to same-sex marriage initially.

[IMPress Polly]

The cases that the opponents of same-sex marriage make kind of amuse me. We're talking about people who declare themselves the great defenders of the marriage institution and family life, yet here we find them railing against the evils of marriage and family life in apparent preference for the alternative that they just as often denounce: casual relationships. Marriage, the raising of children, etc., you see, are supposed to be privileges reserved for them. Why? No real reason, just the way it's always been. Or because god said so or something. Of course we can't even verify that god exists let alone that he said that, so I figure it a rather poor argument to say that our laws should revolve around his opinions. (Although I guess they disagree in North Carolina. (http://www.wral.com/proposal-supports-state-religion-in-north-carolina/12296876/)) Yes there most certainly is a 'gay gene' and you've almost certainly known people who were lesbian or gay before, whether or not they were out of the closet about it. Seriously, there just is no argument against equal rights for GBLT people. We legalized same-sex marriage almost four years ago in my state and lo and behold that civilization has not yet come to an end in Vermont.

That said, being an egalitarian about this doesn't make me a libertarian about it. I don't agree with the libertarians' proposal that we should privatize the institution of marriage and thus do away with all marriage benefits and allow people to call any kind of union they want a legitimate marriage. In my belief that family life has intrinsic value to society, I believe it should be promoted by the state with benefits and that the state should only reward egalitarian relationships with those benefits, not polygamous unions or what have you.

[Mainecoons]

In other words, you want your definition of marriage, not someone else's. OK, I can understand that. :grin:

I'll stick with many thousands of years of the definition: It is between a MAN and a WOMAN. The government preferences that exist are there for the purpose of encouraging matrimony and family stability as opposed to shacking up. The benefits to society of this have been studied to death and confirmed beyond doubt, particularly as related to children.

Given that said incentives don't seem to be working anyway, may as well dump the whole business and let anyone "marry" anyone and anything they want. In any case, you don't have some right to change the definition any more than the next guy, so if we're going to do that, fairness demands we chuck the whole thing.

[IMPress Polly]

Mainecoons wrote:
I'll stick with many thousands of years of the definition: It is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

Actually the traditional definition over most of that history has been a union between one man and as many women as possible. Likewise traditionally marriages throughout the last several thousand years of human history have generally been arranged marriages. Likewise, as recently as the 1960s, the definition of a legitimate marriage in many U.S. states restricted one to marrying within their own race. Was it wrong for society to change the definition of marriage in those cases?

No one is making you marry another man. We are simply talking about giving lesbian and gay couples the same legal rights and benefits that you enjoy as a heterosexual. Like most of today's youth, I fail to see what your problem is.

[Greenridgeman]

Actually the traditional definition over most of that history has been a union between one man and as many women as possible. Likewise traditionally marriages throughout the last several thousand years of human history have generally been arranged marriages. Likewise, as recently as the 1960s, the definition of a legitimate marriage in many U.S. states restricted one to marrying within their own race. Was it wrong for society to change the definition of marriage in those cases?









No one is making you marry another man. We are simply about giving lesbian and gay couples the same legal rights and benefits that you enjoy as a heterosexual. Like most of today's youth, I fail to see what your problem is.


Marriage is an outdated religious concept.

We need a federal law concerning contracts between individuals, or among clusters of individuals, that spell out legal issues involved in living together and merging property, lives, family etc, and they could be for as little as a year, or as long as it takes to raise kids.

For those who want a religious marriage, that is what churchs are for.

People could be free to enter into a contract, or a marriage, or both.

It is really not a battle worth fighting

[Chris]

The cases that the opponents of same-sex marriage make kind of amuse me. We're talking about people who declare themselves the great defenders of the marriage institution and family life, yet here we find them railing against the evils of marriage and family life in apparent preference for the alternative that they just as often denounce: casual relationships. Marriage, the raising of children, etc., you see, are supposed to be privileges reserved for them. Why? No real reason, just the way it's always been. Or because god said so or something. Of course we can't even verify that god exists let alone that he said that, so I figure it a rather poor argument to say that our laws should revolve around his opinions. (Although I guess they disagree in North Carolina. (http://www.wral.com/proposal-supports-state-religion-in-north-carolina/12296876/)) Yes there most certainly is a 'gay gene' and you've almost certainly known people who were lesbian or gay before, whether or not they were out of the closet about it. Seriously, there just is no argument against equal rights for GBLT people. We legalized same-sex marriage almost four years ago in my state and lo and behold that civilization has not yet come to an end in Vermont.

That said, being an egalitarian about this doesn't make me a libertarian about it. I don't agree with the libertarians' proposal that we should privatize the institution of marriage and thus do away with all marriage benefits and allow people to call any kind of union they want a legitimate marriage. In my belief that family life has intrinsic value to society, I believe it should be promoted by the state with benefits and that the state should only reward egalitarian relationships with those benefits, not polygamous unions or what have you.


That said, being an egalitarian about this doesn't make me a libertarian about it. I don't agree with the libertarians' proposal that we should privatize the institution of marriage and thus do away with all marriage benefits and allow people to call any kind of union they want a legitimate marriage. In my belief that family life has intrinsic value to society, I believe it should be promoted by the state with benefits and that the state should only reward egalitarian relationships with those benefits, not polygamous unions or what have you.

The libertarian, given that people are different, unequal, advocates equal treatment before the law. The egalitarian, believing people are the same, equal, advocates unequal treatment before the law, favoring this or that group over another, coercing your view on others. The libertarian is against the state imposing the will of some, be they conservatives arguing for DOMA or liberals like you, on others. That doesn't mean however that the state couldn't serve a useful purpose in enforcing contracts between people in marriage.

[Chris]

In other words, you want your definition of marriage, not someone else's. OK, I can understand that. :grin:

I'll stick with many thousands of years of the definition: It is between a MAN and a WOMAN. The government preferences that exist are there for the purpose of encouraging matrimony and family stability as opposed to shacking up. The benefits to society of this have been studied to death and confirmed beyond doubt, particularly as related to children.

Given that said incentives don't seem to be working anyway, may as well dump the whole business and let anyone "marry" anyone and anything they want. In any case, you don't have some right to change the definition any more than the next guy, so if we're going to do that, fairness demands we chuck the whole thing.


I'll stick with many thousands of years of the definition: It is between a MAN and a WOMAN.

I keep asking where we can find this definition. No one seems to know.


The government preferences that exist are there for the purpose of encouraging matrimony and family stability as opposed to shacking up. The benefits to society of this have been studied to death and confirmed beyond doubt, particularly as related to children.

Not government's role.

And, no, studies on this are inconclusive. See The shaky science behind same-sex marriage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-shaky-science-behind-same-sex-marriage/2013/03/15/ccdbe82a-8cc9-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html).

[IMPress Polly]

Greenridgeman wrote:
Marriage is an outdated religious concept.

We need a federal law concerning contracts between individuals, or among clusters of individuals, that spell out legal issues involved in living together and merging property, lives, family etc, and they could be for as little as a year, or as long as it takes to raise kids.

For those who want a religious marriage, that is what churchs are for.

People could be free to enter into a contract, or a marriage, or both.

It is really not a battle worth fighting

I disagree with the notion that marriage is an outdated concept. IMO it's a timeless institution that will never truly die. There are still many, many marriages that are successful. And if it's necessarily religious in nature, then why did communist states historically promote it too, given their overwhelmingly atheistic worldview? That said, I have no objection to your proposal that we legalize civil unions for everyone. I do think many people really need a more short-term commitment option. But I fail to see why civil unions on the one hand and the institution of marriage on the other cannot coexist. I fail to see why we need to abolish or privatize the one to have the other as an option. This shouldn't be an either-or proposition, IMO.

[Private Pickle]

I disagree with the notion that marriage is an outdated concept. IMO it's a timeless institution that will never truly die. There are still many, many marriages that are successful. And if it's necessarily religious in nature, then why did communist states historically promote it too, given their overwhelmingly atheistic worldview? That said, I have no objection to your proposal that we legalize civil unions for everyone. I do think many people really do need a more short-term commitment option. But I fail to see why civil unions on the one hand and the institution of marriage on the other cannot coexist. I fail to see why we need to abolish or privatize the one to have the other as an option. This shouldn't be an either-or proposition, IMO.

It's pretty simple really. Most Americans view marriage as a religious institution even though it is debateably not. Remove that issue by removing government's involvement in any religious institution and replace it with a civil contract with the same rights and benefits.

Are people really that worried about a word?

[IMPress Polly]

I'm not personally hung up on a word (or the corresponding ceremonies) myself, but using your standard of public opinion, most Americans also aren't actively petitioning their government for civil unions. The major political movement right now is for an expansion of the legal definition of marriage to include lesbian and gay couples. I still don't see people's problem with that is.

[Private Pickle]

Using your standard of public opinion, most Americans also aren't actively petitioning their government for civil unions. The major political movement right now is for an expansion of the legal definition of marriage to include lesbian and gay couples. I still don't see people's problem with that is.

That's because you don't share their moral values and have no desire to understand their perspective.

[Chris]

I'm not personally hung up on a word (or the corresponding ceremonies) myself, but using your standard of public opinion, most Americans also aren't actively petitioning their government for civil unions. The major political movement right now is for an expansion of the legal definition of marriage to include lesbian and gay couples. I still don't see people's problem with that is.


The major political movement right now is for an expansion of the legal definition of marriage to include lesbian and gay couples.

Rather it is for a removal of restrictions like DOMA.


See your own first post today, it is you who want to expand government, not limit it.

[Greenridgeman]

I disagree with the notion that marriage is an outdated concept. IMO it's a timeless institution that will never truly die. There are still many, many marriages that are successful. And if it's necessarily religious in nature, then why did communist states historically promote it too, given their overwhelmingly atheistic worldview? That said, I have no objection to your proposal that we legalize civil unions for everyone. I do think many people really need a more short-term commitment option. But I fail to see why civil unions on the one hand and the institution of marriage on the other cannot coexist. I fail to see why we need to abolish or privatize the one to have the other as an option. This shouldn't be an either-or proposition, IMO.



More than half of US kids now being born out of wedlock supports that marriage as we have known it is outdated.

"People could be free to enter into a contract, or a marriage, or both." Pretty much shows I think they can co-exist.

[Greenridgeman]

That's because you don't share their moral values and have no desire to understand their perspective.


I just hate fighting battles you know you cannot win.

When courts, Congress, etc, can change the meaning of words in order to make something that is unconstitutional constitutional, as in a penalty is not a tax, unless it is a penalty we call a tax to make a law pass review that otherwise could not pass review, it becomes time to just enjoy the ride.

[Peter1469]

Somehow I am concluding that this gay marriage issue is only Congress's (or "those in power") left hand keeping us occupied while they screw us with their right hand.....

[IMPress Polly]

Well they can't seem to accomplish anything on budgetary and economic issues (or at least issues that are directly economic anyway), so I'm not complaining about an area where there actually are signs of progress.

[Mainecoons]

I keep asking where we can find this definition. No one seems to know.



Not government's role.

And, no, studies on this are inconclusive. See The shaky science behind same-sex marriage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-shaky-science-behind-same-sex-marriage/2013/03/15/ccdbe82a-8cc9-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html).

It's called actual practice, Chris. Since it was universal for all those thousands of years, why would anyone think they needed to write it down?

The government studies I refer to prove conclusively that children in traditional families as opposed to single parent ones do a great deal better. This is so easily looked up I'm not going to waste time doing it for you. I live with a clinical social worker who has a bookshelf full of this stuff.

My point remains, if you are going to change the centuries old practice of marriage between men and women, may as well chuck the whole deal. And good luck as your society crashes around your ears. One of the things about learning from history is that there are countless examples of why the ethical frameworks of religion produce successful and stable societies and when that ethical framework is abandoned, the roof always falls in shortly thereafter. Take away the supreme being veneer and what religion does is to lay down a set of social mores that works and has worked and stops working when they are no longer observed.

I don't know how anyone could look at the U.S. today and not see this history being repeated. As the society has abandoned its mores about drug use, promiscuity, unclean sexual practices, honesty, civility, you name it, the social decay has and continues to accelerate faster and faster. One hundred ten million of the population with some form of VD, the majority admitting to drug use spawning a wave of criminality, over 50 million abortions and use of the practice for simple birth control, just how much of this has to hit you all in the face before you get it.

You may scorn and scoff that old time religion but it produced a successful society and now it is proving that history really does repeat itself.

[Chris]

It's called actual practice, Chris. Since it was universal for all those thousands of years, why would anyone think they needed to write it down?

The government studies I refer to prove conclusively that children in traditional families as opposed to single parent ones do a great deal better. This is so easily looked up I'm not going to waste time doing it for you. I live with a clinical social worker who has a bookshelf full of this stuff.

My point remains, if you are going to change the centuries old practice of marriage between men and women, may as well chuck the whole deal. And good luck as your society crashes around your ears. One of the things about learning from history is that there are countless examples of why the ethical frameworks of religion produce successful and stable societies and when that ethical framework is abandoned, the roof always falls in shortly thereafter. Take away the supreme being veneer and what religion does is to lay down a set of social mores that works and has worked and stops working when they are no longer observed.

I don't know how anyone could look at the U.S. today and not see this history being repeated. As the society has abandoned its mores about drug use, promiscuity, unclean sexual practices, honesty, civility, you name it, the social decay has and continues to accelerate faster and faster. One hundred ten million of the population with some form of VD, the majority admitting to drug use spawning a wave of criminality, over 50 million abortions and use of the practice for simple birth control, just how much of this has to hit you all in the face before you get it.

You may scorn and scoff that old time religion but it produced a successful society and now it is proving that history really does repeat itself.

Marriage of same sexes is as old as history as well.

There are no studies, government or otherwise' showing gays can't raise kids as well.

[Mainecoons]

It is? Where? And don't be silly and cite a few isolated incidences. Name whole societies of significant size where this was sanctioned and common.

You can't.

I am not referring to gays, I am referring to single parent households. Did you read what I posted?

[Chris]

It is? Where? And don't be silly and cite a few isolated incidences. Name whole societies of significant size where this was sanctioned and common.

You can't.

I am not referring to gays, I am referring to single parent households. Did you read what I posted?

You're special pleading. Simple fact is gay marriage has existed throughout history.

Single parent studies are irrelevant.

[Mainecoons]

You're not answering my question. "Has existed" is only relevant if the scale of existence is relevant.

And it isn't.

[Peter1469]

Marriage of same sexes is as old as history as well.

There are no studies, government or otherwise' showing gays can't raise kids as well.

Then show it.

I still think this issue is red meat for the masses so Congress can rape us economically. Keep a hand on your wallet while you consider the marriage issue.

[Chris]

You're not answering my question. "Has existed" is only relevant if the scale of existence is relevant.

And it isn't.

Ah, so I am supposed to do what you yourself cannot do, cite history.

And I must meet criteria you set for it that you yourself cannot meet.

And yet I will do just that.


An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. [Hinsch, Bret. (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve. University of California Press. pp. 24–25]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. [Boswell, John (1995). Same-sex unions in premodern Europe. New York: Vintage Books. pp. 80–85. ISBN 0-679-75164-5.]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. [Suetonius Nero 28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28, 62.13]

etc

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient


Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

...Plato’s Symposium, for example, describes instances of homosexual attraction and same-sex relationships in ancient Greece without condemnation. Some point to examples of same-sex interaction in Greek artwork as further evidence of its equal status within the society. Individual, higher status, however, was of critical importance to free expression of love.

...The main considerations in same-sex relationships in early history were often love, beauty, and excellence of character rather than gender. There was also a cultural-religious basis for homosexual practice. Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus. And the epics of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, contain poetic passages that suggested homoerotic love to the educated hearer. But the culture underwent a transition during which homosexual expressions of love went from overt to covert (Dynes).

Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).

Over time, Rome experienced a similar trajectory as Greece between the early republic and the later empire, and negative attitude toward same-sex unions and non-procreative sexuality increased with the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire (Pickett). By the fourth century, anxiety toward obviously pervasive same-sex unions reached a peak when the state passed a law promising punishment to anyone entering a same-sex marriage (Eskridge).

...Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

...Confucianism strongly emphasized the importance of family and lineage, but did not punish homosexuality as severely as it did adultery. “As long as one fulfilled familial and social obligations . . . Confucians did not single out homosexual behavior for special rebuke” (Ishay). On the contrary, there existed occasions for same-sex bonds or contracts for both women and men. Though traditional historical sources in China tended to not cover practices that deviated from standard social forms, some researchers have found evidence of institutionalized male homosexuality and companionate unions in stories and plays that seem representative of a larger subculture (Sullivan).

...There is some evidence that same-sex relationships enjoyed relative freedom through the early Middle Ages. European secular law had few recorded limitations on same-sex behavior, and there is even evidence in the literature of the clergy of compassion for homosexuality, notably within the clergy itself (Pickett).

The church seemed to be tolerant of same-sex unions in practice and made some provisions for ceremonies commemorating the companionate brotherhood. John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality documents homosexual marriages performed by gay clerics dating back to the fourth century.

@ http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

That same article points out that attitudes later changed:


It was in the thirteenth century, however, that the first laws against sodomy emerged and began to be enforced. Through the next several centuries in the West, all manner of behavior deemed deviant or unnatural began to be condemned, causing a shift from the earlier belief that same-sex unions were “problematic” because they were interpreted as unnatural to the belief that same-sex unions were a serious threat to society—and, like heretics, witches, and Jews, practitioners of such unions were violently repelled. Moreover, by the nineteenth century, heterosexuality became understood as the standard sexual orientation. Deviations to the norm became understood as diseases which, if not treated, should be suppressed. As a result, same-sex marriage was largely prohibited throughout the West. Meanwhile, missionaries from Western churches forcibly converted indigenous practices (Eskridge). The peak of discrimination came under the Nazi regime, where homosexuals were among the many victims classified as of an inferior race (Ishay).

And America?


A certain amount of amnesia surrounds this issue. At a time when a National Journal reporter can casually claim that in the '80s same-sex marriage was "little more than a thought experiment," it's worth remembering that for countless people, same-sex marriage in the '80s—and earlier—was a day-to-day reality, even if the families they established didn't enjoy the same legal status as the families forged by heterosexuals. The movement toward marital rights for gays and lesbians didn't begin with a bill or a thought experiment. It began with ordinary couples who decided to marry whether or not the government was going to recognize their union. As I wrote two years ago,


Members of the same gender have been coupling off for centuries, sometimes with ceremonies that look rather marital to modern eyes. Here in America, gay marriages predate the modern gay rights movement. Six years before Stonewall, the 1963 book The Homosexual and his Society described informal gay weddings where "all the formalities of [a] legally certified and religiously sanctioned ceremony are aped with the greatest of care."...As gay life became more visible, so did those permanent partnerships, and as social tolerance of homosexuality grew, more people accepted the partners' marriages as real. In 1992, long before any state recognized gay marriage as a legal right, Suzanne Sherman could fill a big chunk of a book by interviewing gays who had married and officiants who had blessed their unions. Such marriages were eventually honored by institutions outside as well as inside the gay community. By 1993, the list of companies that allowed domestic partners of the same sex to share benefits included Microsoft, Apple, HBO, Warner Bros., and Borders. By 2007, gay couples who wanted to get married at Disneyland were free to purchase the Fairy Tale Wedding package....

And so a social institution took hold: first among gays themselves, then in the larger community and marketplace. Finally the government took notice.

@ http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/26/the-long-history-of-gay-marriage

[Chris]

Then show it.

I still think this issue is red meat for the masses so Congress can rape us economically. Keep a hand on your wallet while you consider the marriage issue.

Did.

You all's turn to show it rather than merely claim it.

[Mainecoons]

You failed to demonstrate general commonality and acceptance among the general population. I'm not interested in what has happened in the U.S. in the last 20 years or so. So the last part is irrelevant. We're talking much earlier history and there, this practice was an aberration, not a generally accepted and widely practiced form of marriage.

Nice try though, an informative read, thanks.

Cannibalism was probably more common. :grin:

[Chris]

You failed to demonstrate general commonality and acceptance among the general population.

Nice try though, an informative read, thanks.

Cannibalism was probably more common. :grin:

And that is your special pleading. You define away the issue.

Interracial marriage is uncommon, there were once laws against it, do those facts make it unnatural? No. Why? Because that would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Ditto marriage between gays.

What I did demonstrate is that more often than note, it did exist, was tolerated if not accepted. More often than not through history, no one cared.

Still waiting for your history...

[Mainecoons]

Interracial marriage history is a strawman. Try again.

We're talking about marriage between men and women and the commonality and cultural acceptance of that practice in history. Interracial marriage is very common in history as you well know. Gay marriage was an aberration and no matter how you dance, it remained so until very recent time even in the U.S.

Let's stick to apples and apples, shall we?

[Chris]

Interracial marriage history is a strawman. Try again.

We're talking about marriage between men and women and the commonality and cultural acceptance of that practice in history. Interracial marriage is very common in history as you well know. Gay marriage was an aberration and no matter how you dance, it remained so until very recent time even in the U.S.

Let's stick to apples and apples, shall we?

Except I wasn't arguing marriage between races and between gays is the same.

Interracial marriage was an analogy to show that statistical norms do not define what's natural.

[Mainecoons]

Oh, and you seem to be citing from ancient civilizations at the times they were pretty much in decline, both morally and in terms of financial and military power. Are you suggesting that gay marriage is a symptom of a society in advanced states of moral decline?

If so, I would agree. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they marry each other or not because, first, I'm a Libertarian, and second, I think the society is toast anyway. What I get damned tired of is people who should know better like yourself trying to pretend this is anything other than a dysfunction and a sad one at that.

I sure don't hate gays, I feel sorry for them and I don't want to see government or media or anyone else trying to brainwash the public into seeing this as some kind of generalized, normalized and preferable way for people to live. I know too damn many of them and the reality is that it is not the way that most would live if they really had a choice.

[Mainecoons]

Except I wasn't arguing marriage between races and between gays is the same.

Interracial marriage was an analogy to show that statistical norms do not define what's natural.

Then why did you bring it up at all? It is irrelevant and a strawman. Tch. Tch. :grin:

[Chris]

Then why did you bring it up at all? It is irrelevant and a strawman. Tch. Tch. :grin:

It countered you commonality argument.

Another analogy. By any bell curve statistic there are fewer intelligent than unintelligent and mediocre people. Intelligence is uncommon. Is it unnatural?

[Mainecoons]

It hardly counters the commonality argument since it has always been common. And just as irrelevant to the point.

Surely you aren't trying to pretend that homosexual marriage was as common as interracial coupling in history?

You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your contradictory and irrelevant attempts to escape the fact that throughout history until VERY RECENT TIMES, with only totally minor exceptions, marriage was between a man and a woman, PERIOD.

:rofl:

[Mister D]

Oh, and you seem to be citing from ancient civilizations at the times they were pretty much in decline, both morally and in terms of financial and military power. Are you suggesting that gay marriage is a symptom of a society in advanced states of moral decline?

If so, I would agree. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they marry each other or not because, first, I'm a Libertarian, and second, I think the society is toast anyway. What I get damned tired of is people who should know better like yourself trying to pretend this is anything other than a dysfunction and a sad one at that.

I sure don't hate gays, I feel sorry for them and I don't want to see government or media or anyone else trying to brainwash the public into seeing this as some kind of generalized, normalized and preferable way for people to live. I know too damn many of them and the reality is that it is not the way that most would live if they really had a choice.

Not the Wikipedia same sex marriage article again. :rollseyes: Don't be fooled, Maine. There were no gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome, ancient Israel, or Mesopotamia. It simply did not occur. Perhaps an isolated instance here or there but it was extremely rare and aberrant if it ever happened at all. You are correct that gay marriage is a VERY recent phenomenon.

Reading the second "source" one quickly notices the Wikipedia pattern which is no surprise since it's another version of Wikipedia and was likely written by an activist. A claim is made regarding marriage but when the evidence is discussed that term is replaced with "relationships" and "co-habitation".

[Chris]

Oh, and you seem to be citing from ancient civilizations at the times they were pretty much in decline, both morally and in terms of financial and military power. Are you suggesting that gay marriage is a symptom of a society in advanced states of moral decline?

If so, I would agree. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether they marry each other or not because, first, I'm a Libertarian, and second, I think the society is toast anyway. What I get damned tired of is people who should know better like yourself trying to pretend this is anything other than a dysfunction and a sad one at that.

I sure don't hate gays, I feel sorry for them and I don't want to see government or media or anyone else trying to brainwash the public into seeing this as some kind of generalized, normalized and preferable way for people to live. I know too damn many of them and the reality is that it is not the way that most would live if they really had a choice.

My thesis would indeed be that where concern about marriage by gays arose was in times of decline. Government, the elites, would need scapegoats to distract from their failures to govern. This is what peter pointed out above as something our own government is doing raising this issue now. It is a symptom of a civilization in decline.

A libertarian myself I don't want government involved pro or con. It's not its constitutional purpose.

[Mister D]

My thesis would indeed be that where concern about marriage by gays arose was in times of decline. Government, the elites, would need scapegoats to distract from their failures to govern. This is what peter pointed out above as something our own government is doing raising this issue now. It is a symptom of a civilization in decline.

A libertarian myself I don't want government involved pro or con. It's not its constitutional purpose.

Except of course that is ahistorical nonsense.

[Chris]

Not the Wikipedia same sex marriage article again. :rollseyes: Don't be fooled, Maine. There were no gay marriages in ancient Greece or Rome, ancient Israel, or Mesopotamia. It simply did not occur. Perhaps an isolated instance here or there but it was extremely rare and aberrant if it ever happened at all. You are correct that gay marriage is a VERY recent phenomenon.

Reading the second "source" one quickly notices the Wikipedia pattern which is no surprise since it's another version of Wikipedia and was likely written by an activist. A claim is made regarding marriage but when the evidence is discussed that term is replaced with "relationships" and "co-habitation".

And yet I have produced evidence there were.

I have also countered the comonality/rarity argument with analogies to uncommon interracial marriage and rare intelligence.

[Mister D]

And yet I have produced evidence there were.

I have also countered the comonality/rarity argument with analogies to uncommon interracial marriage and rare intelligence.

Actually, you haven't and you should know that by now. Please leave the history to those who understand it and respect it.

[Peter1469]

Did.

You all's turn to show it rather than merely claim it.

:rollseyes:


Fail.

[Mister D]

:rollseyes:


Fail.

Miserably.

[Chloe]

I'm sorry but does it really matter if gay marriage didn't happen in ancient greece or rome or something, or that marriage has been between two straight people for 1000 years and so on? Why do we need to try and mirror the past or try and keep it the same for centuries on end? Fo what, tradition? If gay marriage was accepted and seen as just normal marriage today then in 500 years wouldn't those future people be talking about tradition as well..only at that time the "tradition" will be both straight and gay people getting married and will be seen as normal. Times change, cultures change, traditions change. I'm sure there are a lot of things that happened 100 years ago that never happen today and because of that I know there are a ton of things that we don't do anymore today that were probably done 1000 years ago. We need to stop clinging to some sort of nostalgic past in my opinion. Not everybody experienced the same "past" as others and so I think it's important to continuously try to improve life and write new histories. I really hope that when I am old and have grandchildren that they are more accepting and welcoming of people, ideas, and things at that time than what we see today and in the past.

There is soooo much fear from people who are so desperate to try and cling to the past but in reality all they are doing is clinging to happy memories and a past that THEY had in THEIR lives, but by clinging to their past and their memories they are ruining the opportunity for other people, gay people, to have those same memories and life events. It sucks in my opinion.

[Chris]

:rollseyes:


Fail.

Indeed many of you talk about these traditional values but can't document it.

I did document my point.

[Chris]

It hardly counters the commonality argument since it has always been common. And just as irrelevant to the point.

Surely you aren't trying to pretend that homosexual marriage was as common as interracial coupling in history?

You're digging yourself in deeper and deeper in your contradictory and irrelevant attempts to escape the fact that throughout history until VERY RECENT TIMES, with only totally minor exceptions, marriage was between a man and a woman, PERIOD.

:rofl:

Do you deliberately miss the point, maine? You can knock down that straw man till the cows come home, it matters little. I am not comparing marriage by gays to marriage by interracial couples. I am making an analogy to draw out the fact that statistical norms do not imply social or natural norms.



the fact that throughout history until VERY RECENT TIMES, with only totally minor exceptions, marriage was between a man and a woman, PERIOD.

Practice what you preach. You demanded I produce evidence. Your turn.

[Mister D]

Indeed many of you talk about these traditional values but can't document it.

I did document my point.

:laugh: Really? The evidence for marriages between males and females is overwhelming. The evidence for same sex marriage consists of a few fanciful interpretations amidst a sea of deceit and obfuscation. Indeed, the evidence for sex marriage should also be overwhelmingly were it ever a real practice but it's not because it wasn't.

[Chris]

Actually, you haven't and you should know that by now. Please leave the history to those who understand it and respect it.

And where is your historical evidence, hmmm? Ad hom doesn't cut it.

[Chloe]

:laugh: Really? The evidence for marriages between males and females is overwhelming. The evidence for same sex marriage consists of a few fanciful interpretations amidst a sea of deceit and obfuscation. Indeed, the evidence for sex marriage should also be overwhelmingly were it ever a real practice but it's not because it wasn't.

But it can be

[Chris]

I'm sorry but does it really matter if gay marriage didn't happen in ancient greece or rome or something, or that marriage has been between two straight people for 1000 years and so on? Why do we need to try and mirror the past or try and keep it the same for centuries on end? Fo what, tradition? If gay marriage was accepted and seen as just normal marriage today then in 500 years wouldn't those future people be talking about tradition as well..only at that time the "tradition" will be both straight and gay people getting married and will be seen as normal. Times change, cultures change, traditions change. I'm sure there are a lot of things that happened 100 years ago that never happen today and because of that I know there are a ton of things that we don't do anymore today that were probably done 1000 years ago. We need to stop clinging to some sort of nostalgic past in my opinion. Not everybody experienced the same "past" as others and so I think it's important to continuously try to improve life and write new histories. I really hope that when I am old and have grandchildren that they are more accepting and welcoming of people, ideas, and things at that time than what we see today and in the past.

There is soooo much fear from people who are so desperate to try and cling to the past but in reality all they are doing is clinging to happy memories and a past that THEY had in THEIR lives, but by clinging to their past and their memories they are ruining the opportunity for other people, gay people, to have those same memories and life events. It sucks in my opinion.

That is true, your point, history doesn't repeat itself.

The fact is however, as I document above, marriage between gays is as old as history and only in rare times, usually the decline of civilization, was it scapegoated as evil and abhorant.

[Mister D]

But it can be

You know my views. I think it's inane. You are moved by the appeals for gay marriage and that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

[Chris]

:laugh: Really? The evidence for marriages between males and females is overwhelming. The evidence for same sex marriage consists of a few fanciful interpretations amidst a sea of deceit and obfuscation. Indeed, the evidence for sex marriage should also be overwhelmingly were it ever a real practice but it's not because it wasn't.

We have been here a dozen times, you claiming evidence for your personal interpretation and against anything that dares to disagree, but never producing it.

[Mister D]

And where is your historical evidence, hmmm? Ad hom doesn't cut it.

For what? :laugh:

[Mister D]

That is true, your point, history doesn't repeat itself.

The fact is however, as I document above, marriage between gays is as old as history and only in rare times, usually the decline of civilization, was it scapegoated as evil and abhorant.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Chris. Stay off Wikipedia.

[Chris]

You know my views. I think it's inane. You are moved by the appeals for gay marriage and that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

What is the basis of your disagreement? Unsubstantiated claims, straw men and ad hom? Not impressive as arguments go. Let me know when you have some evidence or counter evidence.

[Mister D]

We have been here a dozen times, you claiming evidence for your personal interpretation and against anything that dares to disagree, but never producing it.

Yes, and it's incredible that you continue to make these claims. :laugh: My evidence for what?

[Chris]

You have no idea what you're talking about, Chris. Stay off Wikipedia.

Ad hom. Come on, D, can't you do better than that?

[Mister D]

What is the basis of your disagreement? Unsubstantiated claims, straw men and ad hom? Not impressive as arguments go. Let me know when you have some evidence or counter evidence.

Your evidence, as I've demonstrated several times before, is garbage. Worse still, you aren't even familiar with any of it and just parrot what some kid wrote on Wikipedia. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed?

[Chris]

Yes, and it's incredible that you continue to make these claims. :laugh: My evidence for what?

More ad hom, followed by obfuscation. The evidence for your claims here, D. Where is the documented evidence?

[Mister D]

Ad hom. Come on, D, can't you do better than that?

Look up ad hominem too. You rarely use that term properly.

[Chris]

Your evidence, as I've demonstrated several times before, is garbage. Worse still, you aren't even familiar with any of it and just parrot what some kid wrote on Wikipedia. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed?

Where is this demonstration? All you've done is deny it.

And more ad hom.

[Mister D]

More ad hom, followed by obfuscation. The evidence for your claims here, D. Where is the documented evidence?

My evidence for what, Chris? Do you know? :smiley:

[Chris]

Look up ad hominem too. You rarely use that term properly.

I suggest you look it up, D. Attacking the messenger rather than the message, that's ad hom, and that's what you've been engaging in here.

[Chris]

My evidence for what, Chris? Do you know? :smiley:

Your claims, D.

[Chloe]

You know my views. I think it's inane. You are moved by the appeals for gay marriage and that's fine. We can agree to disagree.

I know you don't really want to get into it again with me about this subject but can I at least ask you one last question then please? and this actually kind of goes for a few other people too I guess...

What makes your past, your upbringing, your views of what is right and wrong based on your experience and history, worth more and carry more weight than what could be the future for two other people who may not share your past and upbringing and version of right and wrong? Basically what makes the traditions and old school way of thinking that you were raised with, and obviously believe in as the standard bearer for what is right and wrong with regards to two gay men or two gay women getting married and dedicating their lives to each other just like two straight people can currently do, correct? Forget religion and things like that for a moment and focus just on the act of denying something or someone for reasons that defined the past, your past, but not the future, their future.

[Mister D]

Where is this demonstration? All you've done is deny it.

And more ad hom.

This was the most recent thrashing I gave you.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11234-Pentagon-push-to-extend-benefits-to-same-sex-couples-stirs-debate?p=240785&viewfull=1#post240785

But there have been several over these preposterous claims of yours.

[Mister D]

Your claims, D.

Could you be more specific? What claims in particular? :smiley:

[Mister D]

I suggest you look it up, D. Attacking the messenger rather than the message, that's ad hom, and that's what you've been engaging in here.

You really don't understand what ad hominem means or how to use it. I've repeatedly demolished your claims and when I mock these efforts of yours its not ad hominem. It's just plain ridicule. Learn the difference.

[Private Pickle]

You really don't understand what ad hominem means or how to use it. I've repeatedly demolished your claims and when I mock these efforts of yours its not ad hominem. It's just plain ridicule. Learn the difference.

I LOL'd.

[Chris]

Could you be more specific? What claims in particular? :smiley:

If you are not aware of what you posted, I don't think I can help you. It sure doesn't make for discussion.

[Chris]

You really don't understand what ad hominem means or how to use it. I've repeatedly demolished your claims and when I mock these efforts of yours its not ad hominem. It's just plain ridicule. Learn the difference.

Used in place of rational argument what you just described is indeed ad hom. One does not "demolish" a message by attacking the messenger, plain and simple.

[Mainecoons]

My thesis would indeed be that where concern about marriage by gays arose was in times of decline. Government, the elites, would need scapegoats to distract from their failures to govern. This is what peter pointed out above as something our own government is doing raising this issue now. It is a symptom of a civilization in decline.

A libertarian myself I don't want government involved pro or con. It's not its constitutional purpose.

Was is that CONCERN rose in times of decline or that gay marriage rose in times of decline?

I think it was the latter and I think this is indeed a significant sign of decline. Along with the rampant occurrence of VD and the promiscuous use of drugs and abortion.

The moral/ethical foundation of most if not all religion is really an empirical summary of the learnings of the human race about what works for individuals and society over the course of human development and when those learnings are ignored by society, the result is always the same: Decline, turmoil, death, reversal of progress, and eventually, a rediscovery that the "old" morality works and needs to be reasserted.

[Chris]

I know you don't really want to get into it again with me about this subject but can I at least ask you one last question then please? and this actually kind of goes for a few other people too I guess...

What makes your past, your upbringing, your views of what is right and wrong based on your experience and history, worth more and carry more weight than what could be the future for two other people who may not share your past and upbringing and version of right and wrong? Basically what makes the traditions and old school way of thinking that you were raised with, and obviously believe in as the standard bearer for what is right and wrong with regards to two gay men or two gay women getting married and dedicating their lives to each other just like two straight people can currently do, correct? Forget religion and things like that for a moment and focus just on the act of denying something or someone for reasons that defined the past, your past, but not the future, their future.

If I might address this, I'd say first that one's personal unsubstantiated opinion matters not one bit more than another's personal unsubstantiated opinion. What is often argued is not rational argument based on historical fact but one's anachronistic impression of it based on emotion and projecting prejudices on the past. Second, even if in the past some values were factually held, while this tradition serves as a good guide, it is not set in stone as an absolute rule. Take for instance slavery, people once valued other people as chattel not human beings. Take Christianity for instance, where would that be if back in the time of Jesus all people had said no their traditional values are framed by Judaism such that no one had followed. Change can be good if it is undertaken with prudence.

[Chris]

Was is that CONCERN rose in times of decline or that gay marriage rose in times of decline?

I think it was the latter and I think this is indeed a significant sign of decline.

I think the citations I made here, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11959-Remarks-on-Same-Sex-Marriage?p=263217&viewfull=1#post263217, demonstrate that marriage between gays existed, no matter uncommon, and was tolerated if not accepted historically prior to a change in society that resulted in intolerance and legal limitations.

I suggest that change was decline, natural decline. I can't "prove" that, it's just a thesis, a theory. It could as well be, more like you think, for example, that there was an increase in marriage between gays that others saw as part of the decline and tried to stop it. I doubt there's sufficient historical record documenting why intolerance and limitations arose to establish a cause/effect relationship.

My only claim earlier was that marriage between gays existed. I think I've shown it did, and was tolerated if not accepted at times, and at times it was not.

[Mister D]

I think the citations I made here, http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11959-Remarks-on-Same-Sex-Marriage?p=263217&viewfull=1#post263217, demonstrate that marriage between gays existed, no matter uncommon, and was tolerated if not accepted historically prior to a change in society that resulted in intolerance and legal limitations.

I suggest that change was decline, natural decline. I can't "prove" that, it's just a thesis, a theory. It could as well be, more like you think, for example, that there was an increase in marriage between gays that others saw as part of the decline and tried to stop it. I doubt there's sufficient historical record documenting why intolerance and limitations arose to establish a cause/effect relationship.

My only claim earlier was that marriage between gays existed. I think I've shown it did, and was tolerated if not accepted at times, and at times it was not.

You have shown nothing of the kind. What you've done is parrot the claims of a teenager who submitted a Wikipedia article. Any time you actually want to defend those claims let me know.

[Mister D]

Was is that CONCERN rose in times of decline or that gay marriage rose in times of decline?

I think it was the latter and I think this is indeed a significant sign of decline. Along with the rampant occurrence of VD and the promiscuous use of drugs and abortion.

The moral/ethical foundation of most if not all religion is really an empirical summary of the learnings of the human race about what works for individuals and society over the course of human development and when those learnings are ignored by society, the result is always the same: Decline, turmoil, death, reversal of progress, and eventually, a rediscovery that the "old" morality works and needs to be reasserted.

Don't be fooled, Maine. There was no such thing as a same sex marriage in the Classical world, ancient Israel, or Mesopotamia.

[Mister D]

Used in place of rational argument what you just described is indeed ad hom. One does not "demolish" a message by attacking the messenger, plain and simple.

No, it's used in conjunction with an argument and you deserve ridicule. That's why you receive it.

[Mister D]

If you are not aware of what you posted, I don't think I can help you. It sure doesn't make for discussion.

So you have no idea. Or could it be that you would be asking me to prove a negative? Yeah, that would be it. :smiley:

[Chris]

So you have no idea. Or could it be that you would be asking me to prove a negative? Yeah, that would be it. :smiley:

Again, if you don't know what your argument is then I can't help you.

[Chris]

No, it's used in conjunction with an argument and you deserve ridicule. That's why you receive it.

THere is no rational justification for logical fallacies like ad hom.

[Chris]

You have shown nothing of the kind. What you've done is parrot the claims of a teenager who submitted a Wikipedia article. Any time you actually want to defend those claims let me know.

I didn't just cite wikipedia. At least get you ad hom right.

[Mister D]

I didn't just cite wikipedia. At least get you ad hom right.

You cited Wikipedia and a Wikipedia look alike. You don't know what you're talking and I've demonstrated this time and again. Why you persist is anyone's guess. Secondly, remember when you cited Keynes' obituary and claimed it was evidence that everyone knew he was a homosexual because the word "gay" (as in happy/merry) appeared in the obit? What do you expect in those situations but for people to laugh at you? That's not ad hom, Chris. That's well deserved ridicule.

[Mister D]

THere is no rational justification for logical fallacies like ad hom.

You're as obsessed with ad hom as you are with this fiction of gay marriage.

[Mister D]

Again, if you don't know what your argument is then I can't help you.

Sure you can. You can tell me what claims I'm supposed show evidence for. I'll wait. :smiley:

[Greenridgeman]

Don't be fooled, Maine. There was no such thing as a same sex marriage in the Classical world, ancient Israel, or Mesopotamia.



Well, its coming here!

Times change.

Live long enough, we will see NAMBLA going to court to lower age of consent to 4.

[Chris]

You cited Wikipedia and a Wikipedia look alike. You don't know what you're talking and I've demonstrated this time and again. Why you persist is anyone's guess. Secondly, remember when you cited Keynes' obituary and claimed it was evidence that everyone knew he was a homosexual because the word "gay" (as in happy/merry) appeared in the obit? What do you expect in those situations but for people to laugh at you? That's not ad hom, Chris. That's well deserved ridicule.
Just more ad hom. Straw men mixed in.

[Mister D]

Just more ad hom. Straw men mixed in.

Oh dear...looks like Chris doesn't understand how to use the term "straw man"either.

[Mister D]

Well, its coming here!

Times change.

Live long enough, we will see NAMBLA going to court to lower age of consent to 4.

That gay marriage opens a whole can of worms is obvious enough. Well, it should have been anyway.

[Greenridgeman]

You're as obsessed with ad hom as you are with this fiction of gay marriage.



" egalitarian male domestic partnership".

Now that's a good one.

Of course, if Nero did it, well, its all on the up and up and we should allow it everywhere tomorrow.

[Greenridgeman]

That gay marriage opens a whole can of worms is obvious enough. Well, it should have been anyway.


I'm stuck in the past, but don't care if gays get a ritual whereby they can be "married".

It effects me about as much as a decree that ruled that dogs henceforth would be known as cats.

It is just another non-issue to distract from the real problem in this country, a politically and economically ignorant electorate.

[Chris]

This is a repost of past 166, what D misrepresents as merely a wikipedia citation.


An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. [Hinsch, Bret. (1990). Passions of the Cut Sleeve. University of California Press. pp. 24–25]

The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire. [Boswell, John (1995). Same-sex unions in premodern Europe. New York: Vintage Books. pp. 80–85. ISBN 0-679-75164-5.]

The first Roman emperor to have married a man was Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. [Suetonius Nero 28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28; Dio Cassius Epitome 62.28, 62.13]

etc

@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient


Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).

...Plato’s Symposium, for example, describes instances of homosexual attraction and same-sex relationships in ancient Greece without condemnation. Some point to examples of same-sex interaction in Greek artwork as further evidence of its equal status within the society. Individual, higher status, however, was of critical importance to free expression of love.

...The main considerations in same-sex relationships in early history were often love, beauty, and excellence of character rather than gender. There was also a cultural-religious basis for homosexual practice. Greek mythology records “same-sex exploits” by gods as high ranking as Zeus. And the epics of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, contain poetic passages that suggested homoerotic love to the educated hearer. But the culture underwent a transition during which homosexual expressions of love went from overt to covert (Dynes).

Roman social customs are relatively well known, and same-sex unions existed as high in society as among Roman emperors. Roman statesman Cicero also documented legal rights of an individual within a same-sex marriage. Female same-sex unions seemed to have been less common, but only because women enjoyed less freedom in their economic and social endeavors (Eskridge).

Over time, Rome experienced a similar trajectory as Greece between the early republic and the later empire, and negative attitude toward same-sex unions and non-procreative sexuality increased with the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire (Pickett). By the fourth century, anxiety toward obviously pervasive same-sex unions reached a peak when the state passed a law promising punishment to anyone entering a same-sex marriage (Eskridge).

...Japanese Buddhism records the most tolerant attitude toward homosexuality, in essence praising it for its mystery (Ishay). Today, there are no religious or political limitations on homosexual behavior in Japan. Sexuality remains a private matter among consenting adults, but there is not yet legal recognition of homosexual unions (McLelland).

...Confucianism strongly emphasized the importance of family and lineage, but did not punish homosexuality as severely as it did adultery. “As long as one fulfilled familial and social obligations . . . Confucians did not single out homosexual behavior for special rebuke” (Ishay). On the contrary, there existed occasions for same-sex bonds or contracts for both women and men. Though traditional historical sources in China tended to not cover practices that deviated from standard social forms, some researchers have found evidence of institutionalized male homosexuality and companionate unions in stories and plays that seem representative of a larger subculture (Sullivan).

...There is some evidence that same-sex relationships enjoyed relative freedom through the early Middle Ages. European secular law had few recorded limitations on same-sex behavior, and there is even evidence in the literature of the clergy of compassion for homosexuality, notably within the clergy itself (Pickett).

The church seemed to be tolerant of same-sex unions in practice and made some provisions for ceremonies commemorating the companionate brotherhood. John Boswell’s Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality documents homosexual marriages performed by gay clerics dating back to the fourth century.

@ http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

That same article points out that attitudes later changed:


It was in the thirteenth century, however, that the first laws against sodomy emerged and began to be enforced. Through the next several centuries in the West, all manner of behavior deemed deviant or unnatural began to be condemned, causing a shift from the earlier belief that same-sex unions were “problematic” because they were interpreted as unnatural to the belief that same-sex unions were a serious threat to society—and, like heretics, witches, and Jews, practitioners of such unions were violently repelled. Moreover, by the nineteenth century, heterosexuality became understood as the standard sexual orientation. Deviations to the norm became understood as diseases which, if not treated, should be suppressed. As a result, same-sex marriage was largely prohibited throughout the West. Meanwhile, missionaries from Western churches forcibly converted indigenous practices (Eskridge). The peak of discrimination came under the Nazi regime, where homosexuals were among the many victims classified as of an inferior race (Ishay).

And America?


A certain amount of amnesia surrounds this issue. At a time when a National Journal reporter can casually claim that in the '80s same-sex marriage was "little more than a thought experiment," it's worth remembering that for countless people, same-sex marriage in the '80s—and earlier—was a day-to-day reality, even if the families they established didn't enjoy the same legal status as the families forged by heterosexuals. The movement toward marital rights for gays and lesbians didn't begin with a bill or a thought experiment. It began with ordinary couples who decided to marry whether or not the government was going to recognize their union. As I wrote two years ago,


Members of the same gender have been coupling off for centuries, sometimes with ceremonies that look rather marital to modern eyes. Here in America, gay marriages predate the modern gay rights movement. Six years before Stonewall, the 1963 book The Homosexual and his Society described informal gay weddings where "all the formalities of [a] legally certified and religiously sanctioned ceremony are aped with the greatest of care."...As gay life became more visible, so did those permanent partnerships, and as social tolerance of homosexuality grew, more people accepted the partners' marriages as real. In 1992, long before any state recognized gay marriage as a legal right, Suzanne Sherman could fill a big chunk of a book by interviewing gays who had married and officiants who had blessed their unions. Such marriages were eventually honored by institutions outside as well as inside the gay community. By 1993, the list of companies that allowed domestic partners of the same sex to share benefits included Microsoft, Apple, HBO, Warner Bros., and Borders. By 2007, gay couples who wanted to get married at Disneyland were free to purchase the Fairy Tale Wedding package....

And so a social institution took hold: first among gays themselves, then in the larger community and marketplace. Finally the government took notice.

@ http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/26/the-long-history-of-gay-marriage

[Mister D]

" egalitarian male domestic partnership".

Now that's a good one.

Of course, if Nero did it, well, its all on the up and up and we should allow it everywhere tomorrow.

These articles are hiliarious in that regard. They are supposed to be about marriage but all sorts of terms are substituted to fool the overly credulous. :grin:

[Mister D]

This is a repost of past 166, what D misrepresents as merely a wikipedia citation.



@ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient



@ http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html

That same article points out that attitudes later changed:



And America?



@ http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/26/the-long-history-of-gay-marriage

He says he didn't cite Wikipedia but then leaves a Wikipedia link...AGAIN. :facepalm::rofl:

[Mister D]

For example...I love this
Chris


Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice.

So our erstwhile teenager makes this rather bizarre statement. This is an article about gay marriage, not homosexuality or sodomy. Accounts? Plural? I only know of one. It's called the Book of Exodus. :laugh: I don't recall anything about gay marriage in that book or anywhere in the bible for that matter. That's because gays didn't marry.

[Ransom]

New to the forum, I see some in here calling it 'gay' marriage, others refer to it as 'same sex' marriage.

That the same thing?

[Chris]

" egalitarian male domestic partnership".

Now that's a good one.

Of course, if Nero did it, well, its all on the up and up and we should allow it everywhere tomorrow.

Not the point. I've merely argued it happened. And provided evidence.

What you're saying with some sarcasm relates to the point chloe made. If nero doing it doesn't justify it now, and I agree, then, too, nero not doing it would not justify not doing it now. Justification for limiting marriage or removing those limitations would need to be rational. I don't think there's any rational basis for government defining marriage one way or another. Leave it to society to decide.

[Chris]

He says he didn't cite Wikipedia but then leaves a Wikipedia link...AGAIN. :facepalm::rofl:

Why do you feel you have a need to make things up?

[Mister D]

Why do you feel you have a need to make things up?

You didn't just leave a Wiki link?

[Mister D]

Not the point. I've merely argued it happened. And provided evidence.

What you're saying with some sarcasm relates to the point chloe made. If nero doing it doesn't justify it now, and I agree, then, too, nero not doing it would not justify not doing it now. Justification for limiting marriage or removing those limitations would need to be rational. I don't think there's any rational basis for government defining marriage one way or another. Leave it to society to decide.

You've argued...no, some teenager argued that homosexuals existed and they canned each other in the ancient world. What that has to do with marriage is anyone's guess.

[Chris]

For example...I love this
Chris



So our erstwhile teenager makes this rather bizarre statement. This is an article about gay marriage, not homosexuality or sodomy. Accounts? Plural? I only know of one. It's called the Book of Exodus. :laugh: I don't recall anything about gay marriage in that book or anywhere in the bible for that matter. That's because gays didn't marry.

Read in context, instead of cherry picked, that was a comment not about Israel ites but Egyptian marital practices.

[Chris]

You didn't just leave a Wiki link?

I never said there wasn't a wiki link. Why did you make it up I had?

And why are you reducing over a dozen sources to wiki?

And who is this teenager you've also made up?

[Mister D]

Some more fun...


In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated (Eskridge).


Documents exist for a variety of marital practices but when it comes time to describe those practices our teenager once again can't find anything about gay marriage so he/she equates buggery with same. Our teen then babbles something polyandry as if it's relevant. Then, as the pièce de résistance, we are offered this reasoning: well, the Code of Hammurabi doesn't say it was illegal therefore it must have existed. Did you write this article, Chris? :laugh:

[Greenridgeman]

For example...I love this
@Chris (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=128)



So our erstwhile teenager makes this rather bizarre statement. This is an article about gay marriage, not homosexuality or sodomy. Accounts? Plural? I only know of one. It's called the Book of Exodus. :laugh: I don't recall anything about gay marriage in that book or anywhere in the bible for that matter. That's because gays didn't marry.


I would say gays didn't marry in legal, state sanctioned unions, or under the grace of any major religion.

I am sure some gays "married" in secret ceremonies and mock "weddings", and some cults may even have performed "marriages".

In today's contentious society, we just need to let the churches do the marrying and the state do the contracting.

Be cheaper than the marriage/divorce cycle.

I bet many think of their first/only wife, and think, Lord, if only we had contracted for a year or two, with an out option!

The whole thing needs an overhaul, considering that today, most marriages prove temporary, and most kids are being born outside of marriage.

[Mister D]

Read in context, instead of cherry picked, that was a comment not about Israel ites but Egyptian marital practices.

Chris, could you tell me where in the Book of Exodus same sex marriage is condemned? I'll wait. If you can't, could you tell us why the hell our erstwhile and confused teen is talking about Exodus? :smiley:

[Mister D]

I would say gays didn't marry in legal, state sanctioned unions, or under the grace of any major religion.

I am sure some gays "married" in secret ceremonies and mock "weddings", and some cults may even have performed "marriages".

In today's contentious society, we just need to let the churches do the marrying and the state do the contracting.

Be cheaper than the marriage/divorce cycle.

I bet many think of their first/only wife, and think, Lord, if only we had contracted for a year or two, with an out option!

The whole thing needs an overhaul, considering that today, most marriages prove temporary, and most kids are being born outside of marriage.

And you would be correct.

[Chris]

Some more fun...
I

Documents exist for a variety of marital practices but when it comes time to describe those practices our teenager once again can't find anything about gay marriage so he/she equates buggery with same. Our teen then babbles something polyandry as if it's relevant. Then, as the pièce de résistance, we are offered this reasoning: well, the Code of Hammurabi doesn't say it was illegal therefore it must have existed. Did you write this article, Chris? :laugh:

Odd argument, to make up a teen to ad hom.

[Chris]

I would say gays didn't marry in legal, state sanctioned unions, or under the grace of any major religion.

I am sure some gays "married" in secret ceremonies and mock "weddings", and some cults may even have performed "marriages".

In today's contentious society, we just need to let the churches do the marrying and the state do the contracting.

Be cheaper than the marriage/divorce cycle.

I bet many think of their first/only wife, and think, Lord, if only we had contracted for a year or two, with an out option!

The whole thing needs an overhaul, considering that today, most marriages prove temporary, and most kids are being born outside of marriage.

And yet history demonstrate gays did marry legally.

Don't disagree that government's only legitimate purpose here is to enforce contracts.

[Chris]

Chris, could you tell me where in the Book of Exodus same sex marriage is condemned? I'll wait. If you can't, could you tell us why the hell our erstwhile and confused teen is talking about Exodus? :smiley:

Why are you making things up? Tell us that. I can't explain what or why you do that.

[Ransom]

Aren't tens of thousands of gay people(regardless of spouse gender) married now...with children?

[Mister D]

Odd argument, to make up a teen to ad hom.

Wikipedia would actually be useful if you need to look up ad hominem. :wink:

[Mister D]

Why are you making things up? Tell us that. I can't explain what or why you do that.

What have I made up? Your teenager was babbling about Exodus. Why? Could you explain that to us? :smiley: