• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-gay marriage rallies as NY ceremonies begin

CriticalThought

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
19,657
Reaction score
8,454
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
"So did marriages between people of the same sex." - Critical Thought






Boring.​







I love that I scare you so much that the best you can do is type "boring" to my every post. How boring do you find this? It's from the Yale Law article.

Further evidence of same-sex relationships may be found in Mesopotamian
statutes, which have been preserved, escaping the fate of the
lost Egyptian laws. None of Mesopotamia's early legal codes-the
Laws of Urukagina (2375 B.C.), the Laws of Ur-Nammu (2100 B.C.),
the Laws of Eshnunna (1750 B.C.), the Laws of Hammurabi (1726
B.C.), and the Hittite Laws (circa 800 B.C.)-prohibited or disapproved
of same-sex relationships, 59 even though sex and marriage
were otherwise heavily regulated. Indeed, the Hittite Laws can be
read to suggest that same-sex marriage was legally as well as culturally
sanctioned in at least some parts of ancient Mesopotamia.

The consensus among modem historians is that republican Rome,
like classical Greece, was tolerant of same-sex relationships. 87 Moreover,
the Romans may have accorded some same-sex unions the legal
or cultural status of marriages. To take one early example, Cicero,
the great Roman lawyer and orator, persuaded Curio the Elder to
honor the debts that Curio's son had incurred on behalf of Antonius,
to whom the son was, in Cicero's words, "united in a stable and permanent
marriage, just as if he had given him a matron's stola."8 8 Cicero's legalistic advice suggests that same-sex relationships were not
only socially accepted among at least some segments of Roman society,
but that they also potentially carried with them legal obligations
and consequences, and hence were marriages as I am using the term.
Records describing Roman social customs during the imperial
period survive in far greater number, at least in part because many, if
not most, of the emperors enjoyed well-documented relationshipssome
of them legally sanctioned marriages-with other men. The evidence
suggests that during the same general time frame when companionate
long-term marriages were being institutionalized for
different-sex couples, 9 they were likewise becoming more common
for same-sex couples, who were entering into relationships akin to
those discussed in Plato's Symposium.

I hope I'm not boring you too much. Proving you wrong over and over and over is never boring to me.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Well, let’s see Belgarath…

I cant’ access your first source so I can’t comment on it (my problem and not a problem with your link).

Your second source says that that “Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago…[and] Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted (emphasis mine) as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.”

I emphasize again…”CAN BE INTERPRETED” and focuses on “civil unions” and not marriage which is odd since “civil unions” are a modern construct.

It doesn't even occur to the author to point out that they are trying to interpret these relationships through a modern world-view and not the circumstances of the times they lived in. Such relationships may have had nothing to do with homosexuality which would probably explain why they defined thier relationships as "brothers".

Your third source says that homosexual marriages in Greece were not legally recognized and your last two sources don’t mention homosexual marriage.

You should probably read your sources before actually posting them.

You sound like your making my argument.
 

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,605
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Actually, I think those opposed to SSM would love to see just this happen. If public opinion matters, this would be a really dumb thing to do. Just sayin'.

I was making a joke. I think it's in extraordinarily bad taste to inject oneself into the more intimate or emotional aspects of another's life, like a wedding or a funeral. It's a cruel and heartless thing to do.

On the flip side, perhaps if this happened to anti-homosexuality bigots, and they suffered the way they make others suffer, they might learn a little empathy. Actually, I don't give those people that much credit, but the principal is sound.

Not stooping to such disgusting tactics is what makes us the good guys.
 

Belgarath

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
51
Location
In front of my computer
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1. I don’t even know if you read the 2nd document, but if you did it was very clear: it’s uncertain, given the natural confusion associated with medieval times, whether anything they ever reported was true, but given the accuracy of any medieval reporter, it seems reasonable to assume, given the evidence, that same-sex unions were sanctified by society.
2. For the 3rd article: don’t judge a book by its cover. Read about the 6th century Greeks and their acceptance of homosexuality, the Roman acceptance about homosexuality, and Alexander the Great’s own infamous bisexuality. You have to read the whole article, not just the first line.
3. Number 4 was intended to address all points regarding homosexuality except the issue of historical marriages. I know it’s easy to think that you’re the center of the universe, but those links were for everyone, not just you. The 4th source addressed some strong arguments against homosexuality that you haven’t mentioned, it was intended to save me some time arguing later once you had epiphanies so that you would have somewhere to look and understand why they were wrong without my having to argue pointlessly.
4. The whole 5th article is talking about the relationship between two homosexuals…or did you not read the article? They say very specifically that it was considered fundamentally correct, just as heterosexuality is- or did you just read it looking for the word marriage? Like I said, marriage is a contemporary term, in many older civilizations you have to look for synonyms, like relationship.
Are you satisfied now?
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
“1. I don’t even know if you read the 2nd document, but if you did it was very clear: it’s uncertain, given the natural confusion associated with medieval times, whether anything they ever reported was true, but given the accuracy of any medieval reporter, it seems reasonable to assume, given the evidence, that same-sex unions were sanctified by society.” - Belgarath

Let’s see… “…it was very clear…it’s uncertain…natural confusion…whether anything they ever reported was true…it seems reasonable to assume” there must have been homosexual marriages hundreds of years ago!

That’s your argument and it’s pathologically stupid.

“2. For the 3rd article: don’t judge a book by its cover. Read about the 6th century Greeks and their acceptance of homosexuality, the Roman acceptance about homosexuality, and Alexander the Great’s own infamous bisexuality. You have to read the whole article, not just the first line.” - Belgarth

Nobody is arguing the Greek and Roman acceptance of homosexuality which often took the form of pedophilia which is why many folks don’t like to reference Greek and Roman acceptance of homosexuality.

“3. Number 4 was intended to address all points regarding homosexuality except the issue of historical marriages.” - Belgarth

Which is what we’ve been discussing so it was a rather useless source to post then, was it not?

“4. The whole 5th article is talking about the relationship between two homosexuals…or did you not read the article? They say very specifically that it was considered fundamentally correct, just as heterosexuality is- or did you just read it looking for the word marriage?” - Belgarth

Yes, because marriage is precisely what we’ve been talking about and nobody is disputing the fact that homosexuality has been around since Old Testament times or that some people think that it was just fine and dandy.

“Like I said, marriage is a contemporary term, in many older civilizations you have to look for synonyms, like relationship.” - Belgarath

A “contemporary term”?

Are you serious?!

Un-freakin-believeable!
 

SlackMaster

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
598
Reaction score
399
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And with another hand wave The Baron ignores evidence contrary to his preconceived notions.

Expert testimony in a court of law was sufficient to prove that homosexual marriage happened. That was cited here, but it's not enough for The Baron.

Thousands of books are out there showing hard evidence of the historical account of homosexual marriage, but it's not enough for The Baron.

What WOULD convince you Baron? It doesn't seem like evidence of any kind is good enough for you. This is why I don't think you're interested in a dialogue. You can't be convinced, because you don't want to be convinced. You dismiss any evidence that is presented to you.

Even if homosexuality wasn't historical, it doesn't matter. Marriage has been ruled a fundamental right protected by the constitution. The equal protection clause of the constitution says that you have to afford that same fundamental right to all people, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. unless there is an overriding government need to do so.

No such need exists or any supposed need hasn't stood up to scrutiny in a court of law.

Now... hand wave this away and prove me correct.
 

The Rev Kros

Banned
Joined
Jul 15, 2011
Messages
72
Reaction score
39
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Slack, step away from The Baron. You are having a conversation with a brick wall. People are starting to look at you funny.
 

The Baron

Knight in Shining Armor
DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
5,967
Reaction score
1,523
Location
Somewhere in Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Actually he's standing on the sidelines not having a conversation with anyone...doesn't count.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
110,642
Reaction score
56,316
Location
Bradenton Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
“About 1/3 of all lesbian women and 1/4 gay men have children.”[/B] - Redress

Not together they didn’t.

Which is relevant in what way? None at all. This is known as a diversion. It is what is done when you cannot counter a point, you divert from it.

“Many more would like to” - Redress

So would many straight couples. And as one who has attempted to adopt I can tell you that it is extremely expensive and all of the children seem to be owned by lawyers.

Again, entirely irrelevant to the point. This is what happens when you break down posts into single sentences.

“Studies conclude conclusively that the gender of parents is irrelevant to how children turn out.” - Redress

And studies show how the children of homosexual parents suffer issues they need not have to. Look, folks like you like to show studies (all inconclusive at this point) that show that gay parents can raise kids and nobody is questioning that. I’ve no doubt that gay parents can love and nurture their children and while this is another debate the ultimate question that has to be answered in that debate is “what is best for the children”. And what is best for kids is to have a mommy and a daddy. Homosexual couples raising kids deliberately excludes one of these.

I would love to see your studies that show that gay parents do less well than strait parents and that a mommy and daddy is better than two mommies or daddies. I will show you mine if you show me yours.


“Marriage promotes stability.” - Redress

No it doesn’t. A quick look at the divorce rate proves you wrong immediately on this point.

And again with the diversions. Compare breakup rates of those not married to those who are just as one example.


“Furthermore, marriage brings a large number(thousands) of federal benefits that enhance married households, which would benefit children in those households.” - Redress

I’ve no problem with gay folks getting benefits but this is a good reason to change the laws…not marriage.

To give the same benefits of marriage to gay people, you are in essence allowing them to marry, no matter what you call it. Having two names for the same thing is stupid.
 

Dustmop

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2011
Messages
128
Reaction score
142
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I emphasize again…”CAN BE INTERPRETED” and focuses on “civil unions” and not marriage which is odd since “civil unions” are a modern construct. -The Baron

You do realize that the purpose of historians and archeologists is to interpret evidence, right? Anything we know about heterosexual or homosexual marriage throughout history has been the result of historians and archeologists interpreting the evidence they find. Just because you don't agree with the interpretation of experts does not mean that your interpretation is any more likely.

And what is best for kids is to have a mommy and a daddy. Homosexual couples raising kids deliberately excludes one of these. -The Baron

Studies have shown that having a mommy and a daddy is not any better for kids than having two moms or two dads. The children are not more or less well adjusted, happy, mature, etc. There are no studies that show any difference in the well being of children by comparing children raised by a heterosexual couple and children raised by a homosexual couple. Again, this argument was examined in great detail in the Prop 8 case, and you can find that discussion if you read the judge's ruling.

And also know that I’ve already stipulated that there have been some instances where two people of the same sex have “married” in the past. Such instances have been isolated and in some instances that “marriages” were better defined as male initiation ceremonies particular to a culture and were not sexual. And such instances never made any influence cross-culturally and seemed to have been limited to a particular time. -The Baron

Regardless, such beliefs never impacted what a marriage fundamentally is which is a life-long commitment between men and women. -The Baron

A “contemporary term”?
Are you serious?!
Un-freakin-believeable!
-The Baron

We have shown to you that marriage, and even sexuality itself, has fluctuated throughout time. Humans existed for a long time before there is any evidence of marriage, so marriage is a contemporary concept compared to the vastness of the history of our species. Then, depending on the culture, there have been same sex marriages, polygamous marriages, religious marriages, civil marriages, temporary marriages, etc. Marriage has fluctuated, it has not always existed, and it has never been one constant idea. It has been life-long, and it has now become commonly temporary. It has been limited by race, and then freed from those racial limitations. Your argument that heterosexual marriage is a fundamental definition of marriage is seriously flawed because the definition of marriage has never throughout history been stagnant. Heterosexual marriage has endured, but so has polygamous marriage, and as evidenced by the countries and states which have legalized it, so has heterosexual marriage.

Not only does the history of marriage fail to support your argument, but even if marriage was a constant unchanging idea, that in no way logically leads to the conclusion that it should not change.
 

Belgarath

Banned
Joined
Jul 22, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
51
Location
In front of my computer
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Gays Raising Children
Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine, Studies Show | LiveScience
Just because I know some of us love proof, and aren't willing to believe it when other's say facts.
Sorry, I've been too busy to deal with your responses to my articles, however off the top of my head I can assure that the only one that didn't address gay relationships and their acceptability in society was #4, and that was addressing some of the other arguments against gay relationships and marriage so I could just reference that post if you brought them up. I think anyone who actually bothers to open the links and read through all the material will be able to see just fine how they show my points, so no offense but I'm not going to waste my time proving my proofs.
 

Bodi

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
111,687
Reaction score
24,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You know, neither of you is currently commenting on the actual point of the thread anymore. If trolling is commenting on points irrelevant to a thread, you're both engaging in it. Maybe if one of you either stops trying to get the last word, or actually made a point regarding the topic of discussion, the accusations of trolling would quietly go to the wayside.

Trolling is actually just meddling in a debate in order to mess with it... tangents from the OP are fine though...
 

Bodi

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
111,687
Reaction score
24,038
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually he's standing on the sidelines not having a conversation with anyone...doesn't count.

Wow, you ignored Critical Thought so blatantly that I am actually quite amazed...
 

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I have no problem with these anti-perversion rallies.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,150
Reaction score
17,798
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I have no problem with these anti-perversion rallies.

It's not the rally that people have a problem with. It's the fact that they believe that the constitutionality of something should be put to a public vote.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It's not the rally that people have a problem with. It's the fact that they believe that the constitutionality of something should be put to a public vote.

It's that fact that it wasn't put to a vote which makes it unconstitutional.
 

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
24,150
Reaction score
17,798
Location
Fort Drum, New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
It's that fact that it wasn't put to a vote which makes it unconstitutional.

It would be nice if Congress got its act together and repealed it, but as it stands DOMA could be struck down by the courts and it would be entirely legitimate.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It would be nice if Congress got its act together and repealed it, but as it stands DOMA could be struck down by the courts and it would be entirely legitimate.

Congress can't even make a budget. I wouldn't put my faith in them regardless of where I stand on any given issue.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's that fact that it wasn't put to a vote which makes it unconstitutional.

Jerry, I like you. I think you're generally well meaning, but the quoted statement is remarkably stupid. The whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the degree to which the "tyranny of the majority" can institute things in opposition to the principles specified in a Constitution.
 

ender1

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2010
Messages
646
Reaction score
142
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Article Here.



Does NOMA understand that you can't vote on constitutional rights and are just using this because they know it will fool the ignorant or are they ignorant themselves?

Or perhaps another reason?

I dont claim to be a bible expert but from my research homosexual behavior is mentioned six times. Being drunk, as a sin, is mentioned hundreds. By percentages that means we should have a few hundred "National Organization for Sobriety" rallies for each one against Gays. Guess its easy when you can pick which sins YOU dont like.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,259
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Jerry, I like you. I think you're generally well meaning, but the quoted statement is remarkably stupid. The whole idea of having a constitution is to limit the degree to which the "tyranny of the majority" can institute things in opposition to the principles specified in a Constitution.

So is it that you just don't understand the history of this specific law? How NY State protocol was ignored in it's creation?

All you see are some people protesting SSM, and you don't care about the merits of their objection, you only care that your side got it's way.
 
Last edited:

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So is it that you just don't understand the history of this specific law? How State protocol was ignored in it's creation?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate.
 

Aderleth

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
4,294
Reaction score
2,027
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's exactly what I thought :2wave:

What you thought is that your previous statement was vague and requires a more detailed analysis? I agree.
 
Top Bottom