Same Sex Marriage has been around for thousands of years

reply to post by keenasbro


The article doesn't help same sex marriages very much in my opinion. Especially when you start off with that great Spokesperson/Role Model for same sex marriage: Emperor Nero of Rome. Who the heck was writing this article??

Fact is, there has been hardly any same sex unions throughout the VAST majority of written human history, in a meaningful societal way.

pavil
reply to post by keenasbro

 

The article doesn't help same sex marriages very much in my opinion. Especially when you start off with that great Spokesperson/Role Model for same sex marriage: Emperor Nero of Rome. Who the heck was writing this article??

Fact is, there has been hardly any same sex unions throughout the VAST majority of written human history, in a meaningful societal way.

It was apparently favourable with roman and greek armies.
Being away from home for long periods of time.
I remember reading once that the soldiers would have sexual partners within the ranks.
Sort of like the phenomenon of prison homosexuality, by stint of necessity(for the weak willed) and not so much choice.
Then there are the biblical tales of Sodom(sodomy) and Gommorah. Or the greek island of Lesbos(lesbian).
There is nothing new about homosexuality. All that happened is religious dogma.
As we become less dependent on the dogma's of religion, then the reality of homosexuality is allowed to be practiced as reason over ideology becomes the norm.

tothetenthpower
reply to post by keenasbro

 

It honestly doesn't matter if it were a thousand year old tradition, or a new thing started last year.

The government, has NO right to deny consenting adults access to a contract, or institution they created in order to provide financial benefits to a couple.

It's not a moral issue, it's not a religious issue and it's not a social issue. It's a legality issue. It's the fact that the government, cannot discriminate and keep tax paying, legal and consenting adults, out of a government program, based on sexual orientation.

Period.

~tenth

No .You are forgetting marriage was not a government institution it was and is a social institution .
What the govt has not created the govt has no right alter.
Not even for financial benefits, the poor don't have the right to "equality" and cannot feed their families yet equality is this movements PR word. The word marriage's SOCIAL definition means man and woman.
All homosexuals in the USA and AUstralia have the right to have and engage in homosexual relationships, society is not stopping it, and this movement is not about equality .Its not illegal or criminal to be a homosexual anymore.

Since it was a social institution it is a social issue.

What is this "govt program" that homosexuals are keep out of?

reply to post by keenasbro


Homosexuality is not new. It's been in every culture before the culture fell apart..... but marriage? No. But plenty of homosexuality and streets full of roving men looking for gang rapes..(oldest acknowledged reference)

reply to post by keenasbro


Of course it has been there for many, many, years. This is just one of the many ways society controled and took freedom away little by little.

Homosexuality has been around for as long as there has been some concept of marriage.

But what marriage has been in our secular history is the basic breeding arrangement of our species. It was traditionally understand as the societal unit of male/female (sometimes varied slightly) recognized as a social contract to create a stabile, secure family unit for the begetting and rearing of offspring, something that takes a significant investment in human society. It also ensures the safe transfer of property within the family.

For these two reasons, societal power structures traditionally endorse marriages legally because most societies like strong, stabile families around which to base themselves and grow strong, stabile peoples.

This is even true in those societies like Greco-Roman culture and ancient Japan where homosexuality was not particularly negatively stigmatized but had its accepted place within the culture.

However, those societies did not have "gay marriages" as we think of them because those societies also understood that no matter what two men or two women could not offer society continuity like the traditional male/female arrangements commonly thought of as marriages could. At best, such unions could only offer a measure of temporary stability.

What we see today is the inevitable result of a shift in focus of marriage from a union for the begetting and rearing of children to simply a narcissistic arrangement between two people who love each other and want to be all wrapped up in each other. Fewer people all the time are getting married for the traditional reason of forming a stable partnership for creating and rearing a family. So, to many, "equality" is simply that - two people forming a union for their love.

By the traditional understanding, homosexual unions and heterosexual unions cannot be equal because it is still biologically impossible. Two men or two women still cannot beget and rear their own children without the help of an outside third party unlike most male/female marriage arrangements (and even those who are medically unable to conceive would still be able to if everything worked the way it should).

Now, I have no problem with gay partnerships and civil unions. I do have a big problem with the government defining what is and is not a marriage for anyone, gay or straight. When you start letting that happen, it inevitably steps on someone's toes, somewhere, in some way, and when that happens, we all lose. Perhaps we should stop having marriage licenses and call them civil unions, no matter who has them. Then leave it up to the people what they have - if you're content to call it your marriage (i.e. J of P ceremony) then I won't tell you otherwise although I don't personally call that a marriage for anyone (yeah, technically I don't consider my sister and brother-in-law married; they did J of P) or you can find a spiritual leader from a faith of your choice to perform a ceremony for you or you can opt our of the license and just get the spiritual ceremony. Either or both and call yourself married. But I think it should be up to the people involved to decide, and while I privately may not believe you to be married in the strict sense, I'm not the kind of jerk who's going to say anything about it. Most people won't.

That's the only way I can think of to compromise and try to let everyone keep the peace on this.

pavil
reply to post by keenasbro

 

The article doesn't help same sex marriages very much in my opinion. Especially when you start off with that great Spokesperson/Role Model for same sex marriage: Emperor Nero of Rome. Who the heck was writing this article??

Fact is, there has been hardly any same sex unions throughout the VAST majority of written human history, in a meaningful societal way.

What is meaningful to you in you society, may well be as meaningful to the people in societies of the past.
Their laws were different than ours, their take on what marriage stood for, was and still is in some parts of Africa, their take, they co exist under these laws that are not questioned, maybe because nobody/gubment has interfered and forced the new norm upon them.

Nero was used as an example that even the nobility of the time engaged in same sex marriage.

Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history and family studies at Evergreen State College in the United States, told ABC Fact Check that the most obvious example of how marriage has differed from Mr Abbott's definition is the long-standing practice of polygamy.

"The most culturally preferred kind of marriage through the ages was between one man and several women – and this is the kind of marriage that is most often referred to in the first five books of the Bible," Professor Coontz said.

"Polygamy was prevalent throughout the world – and even occurred among the nobility of Christian Europe, requiring a long campaign by the Christian church to wipe it out."

Interesting long campaign by the Christian church. When I was married, moons ago, it was deemed to be in the eyes of God. I'm not sure if this practice is the same today, times change.

It's late, and this may be petty, but as pavil pointed out, the article doesn't really support the idea that same-sex marriages were common, consistent through time, and widespread. The article goes after the PM's assertion about one man - one woman marriages.

They have three examples of same sex marriage, Nero's, which was very controverisal according to the article (But who's going to squawk about the Emperor, especially if he's a little nuts?) Some central American people in the 1500's, and some isolated tribes in South America.

Since the article seemed to fasten upon the one man - one woman statement, perhaps they didn't research same sex too thoroughly. But for whatever reason, its not a strong source for same sex marriage support.

reply to post by charles1952


Petty? No, it's a full-fledge topic dodge you're pulling there.

The title of the thread is supported by the article. Same sex marriage has been around for thousands of years; regardless of how widespread or controversial it may have been in the past, it refutes the point that heterosexual marriage has been the sole practice since the beginning of time.

I have to wonder at this point if people are just attacking the article because any argument they could present is strictly uncompelling to an intellectual community.

reply to post by ketsuko


Yes, however, we have situations that blow the point of marriage being a contract for childbearing far out of the water:

1. Heterosexuals can still get married even if they are both sterile.

2. Homosexuals adopt far more frequently than heterosexual, giving children who are already here a good home (which kind of contradicts your assertion about narcissism and deflects it back at the heterosexuals who spawn their own)

You see, there's only one thing keeping gay people in certain states from marrying and giving children who are currently in orphanages or foster care into loving homes; dogmatic ignorance and a whole faction of stubbornness which is void of reason.

When cave people were walking around, lots of them were gay. Same sex attraction is part of nature, and some societies, in the past and now, are and were grown up enough to admit it and make marriage uniform for everyone.

reply to post by BDBinc


It's called marriage.

There are over 1000 different rights and benefits afforded to 'married' couples that are not afforded to single people. Same sex couples are currently being discriminated against as they are not permitted access to this government financing program.

That's all marriage is. It doesn't matter that marriage WAS a social construct. When the government decided to create an institution surrounding it, that gave benefits to some and not others, they gave up the right to exclude legal aged and consenting adults from this 'social construct.'

As it is no longer that, it's now a legal system. We have equality under the law.

~Tenth

TheRegal
.....

2. Homosexuals adopt far more frequently than heterosexual, giving children who are already here a good home (which kind of contradicts your assertion about narcissism and deflects it back at the heterosexuals who spawn their own)

About 21,740 same sex couples had an adopted child in 2009, up from 6,477 in 2000, according to the Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. About 32,571 adopted children were living with same sex couples in 2009, up from 8,310 in 2000. The figures are an analysis of newly released Census Bureau estimates.

source

In 2007 and 2008 there were approximately 135,500 adoptions each year, Source couldn't find the number for 2009 and don't have the time. That's 5 out of six kids being adopted by someone other than a same sex couple. Your assertion isn't accurate. Even if you do it by percentages, that isn't an accurate gauge you would have to take the percentage of hetrosexual couples who can't have kids and compare that to the same sex couple percent in the case of adoption.

Don't claim things as a fact without being able to back it up. Provide evidence to dispute what I have found.

Aleister
When cave people were walking around, lots of them were gay.

And I suppose you have some hard evidence to back this claim up?

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I agree that Religious Marriage has become entwined with Legal Marriage. Same Sex Couples and Hetrosexual Couples should have the same Legal Rights. I think many on both sides get caught up on the word "Marriage". If the Religious and Legal terms hadn't become synonyms, I don't think we would be having much issue.

It would have been better to name the two processes differently Ie; Religious Marriage and a Legal Union. That way everyone who wanted a Legal Union could and those who wanted the Marriage in their religion of choice could still get it.

reply to post by TheRegal

Dear TheRegal,

Thanks for telling me that you're unhappy with my response, it gives me a chance to either clear up the confusion or admit my error, either way I learn from it. Here's my understanding of the article, feel free to correct and specific errors I might have made.

PM Abbott makes a sweeping, general, statement about the universality of one man, one woman marriage. He's new to the job, he doesn't yet realize that politicians are never supposed to make statements conveying definite information. He's telling us what he actually thinks. (Shame on him.)

The article goes into detail about tribes where a woman can have several husbands (Or is that the other way araound?), marriages with ghosts, and a flock of different arrangements other than one man, one woman.

In the entire article, they mention only the same-sex marriages of a lunatic emperor, 16th Century Central America, and a tribe in Brazil that I suspect only specialists have ever heard of. The latter two examples are mentioned in short paragraphs buried in the middle of the article.

If my understanding of the article is correct, I stand by my belief

But for whatever reason, its not a strong source for same sex marriage support.

Surely there are articles providing more examples of the wide spread acceptance of homosexual marriages throughout thousands of years?

Wait a minute! What if there isn't? What if this is it? Nah, people wouldn't be claiming that same-sex marriages were happening all the time, all over the place, if it wasn't true. Would they?

All right, I've re-read your post for the fifth time (it takes me a while, I'm slow.) You have at least three points involved, probably four, and they're a little fuzzy which makes the whole process of untangling them more complicated.

Let me try this to see if I have discerned your meaning.

1.) PM Abbott makes a comment about marriage, forgetting about both polygamy, and the customs of several obscure groups which will never be heard about again.

2.) An article points out Abbott's error. (We good so far?)

3.) The article mentions, almost in passing, that an insane emperor had a same sex marriage 2000 years ago, some Central American groups in the 1500s did, as well as a Brazilian tribe nobody's ever heard of.

4.) So, noticing that the emperor was 2000 years ago, another such custom was found 600 years ago, and a handful of unknowns are doing it now, deep in a jungle, the conclusion is reached that same-sex marriages have been going on for thousands of years.

In a lawyer-like, technical, "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is," I suppose you're correct, and I will admit it.

On the other hand, it is the most misleading statement I have heard in a long time, that didn't come from D.C. It sounds like it came from a Presidential speech.

With respect,
Charles1952

pavil

Aleister
When cave people were walking around, lots of them were gay.

And I suppose you have some hard evidence to back this claim up?

No hard evidence (ahem). But if there are gay humans now, and in such large numbers, just common sense that The Gay has been with us throughout history.

As for evidence, I've never seen them, but I've heard (and someone with more knowledge that I on this subject, please post, thanks) that the majority of cave paintings from the cave folk days portray sex, or large organs, or some type of sexual spirit. So I'd think if the sex act itself were portrayed in cave paintings and drawings, maybe some of them are of gay sex. This is an interesting field to look into, and I'm glad you asked me for proof. I have none now, but maybe others have some data on this.

Aleister

No hard evidence (ahem). But if there are gay humans now, and in such large numbers, just common sense that The Gay has been with us throughout history.

Large numbers???

Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay)

[url=http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/]Source[ /url]

If "Gay" were a nationality it would be on par with Americans of Scottish ancestry. It's a number.....I wouldn't classify it as "Large".

Just saying, facts matter.

pavil

Aleister

No hard evidence (ahem). But if there are gay humans now, and in such large numbers, just common sense that The Gay has been with us throughout history.

Large numbers???

Among adults who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, bisexuals comprise a slight majority (1.8% compared to 1.7% who identify as lesbian or gay)

[url=http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/]Source[ /url]

If "Gay" were a nationality it would be on par with Americans of Scottish ancestry. It's a number.....I wouldn't classify it as "Large".

Just saying, facts matter.

1.7 percent out of seven billion and counting? A huge massively large number.

reply to post by Aleister

I understand you think it is a large number.... in the grand scheme of things, it's a rather small number.