Homosexuality

[The Baron]

“Nowhere in Loving v Virginia does it specifically say 'heterosexual marriage', so your context argument is nullified.” – Singularity

And nowhere in “Loving vs. Virginia” does it state anything about homosexual marriage. The only question that “Loving” addressed was the issue of marriage between races. In this case it had to do with a difference in races, not same-sex marriage.

As the case only dealt with heterosexual marriage between mixed races, there is nothing in Warren’s comments to even remotely suggest--given both the subject and the times--to think that his comments in anyway addressed homosexual marriages.

So once again, context please!

“Certainly. The city of Sodom, correct? My biblical history is a bit rusty, but weren't they facing the wrath of your deity simply because they engaged in homosexuality?” – Singularity

No.

Homosexuality was prevalent but not their only sin. And Sodom most certainly had nothing to do with homosexual marriage which is what my comments were addressing.

“Then there is the Roman Empire, which did recognize homosexual marriages at one point in their history.” – Singularity

Homosexuality was common in Rome and many older men kept young boys as their sexual playthings. However, this was not a “marriage”.

“And what about polygamy? That is certainly one of the different forms of marriage I am speaking of.” – Singularity

Polygamy was certainly practiced but was not “approved” of nor endorsed by God as evidenced by Genesis 1 and Matthew 19.

You will also find examples of murder, lying, stealing, raping, and incest within the Bible, as well. And none of these things are approved of by God, either. They are in the Bible simply because they happened, not because God approved of such matters.

“I have seen no proof anywhere beyond the word of your particular scriptures and their supporters which makes this claim. I am not knocking your religion, but you must realize that other cultures that did not worship in your way also engaged in marriage. While it is certainly acceptable that you believe that marriage is tied to your deity, I do not.” – Singularity

While I am fully aware of the fact that “other cultures that did not worship in [my] way also engaged in marriage”--a fact I’ve mentioned approximately half-a-dozen times now in my own post--it does not change the fact that even in those cultures that do not share my beliefs they have still instituted a traditional union that has always existed between men and women exclusively.

“Than you agree that marriage has always been malleable, too, as it has included not only one man and one woman, but two women and one man, two men, two women, and many other combinations throughout various civilizations in our history.” – Singularity

Absolutely not.

There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.

And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.

It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.

But as a general rule, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).

Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.

“Not hardly. It will certainly demolish your particular definition of it, but the definition has changed throughout history, as I showed you.” – Singularity

Yes, the changes you would seek to enforce upon marriage would certainly bastardize this traditional institution that has formed the bedrock of civilization from the beginning of time.

But with the few notable exception mentioned above, marriage has been quite the constant.

“Yes I am.” – Singularity

Then you speak of only a bastardized version of marriage that will only serve to weaken the institution just as the introduction of no-fault divorce did.

 

[The Baron]

“the real issue is that most people homosexuals and heterosexuals stick their noses into everyone else's business.” – katiegrrl0

Not true.

I really don’t care what you do or how you choose to live your life. That is between you and God (even if you don’t believe in Him).

However, when the homosexual community began attempts to change marriage into something it has never been before the floodgates of controversy were opened and I have every right to stand up and fight for the traditional values that made this country the greatest in the world.

And I will continue to exercise my right with every opportunity that presents itself.

“the issue is that there are now and always have been homosexuals.” - katiegrrl0

That’s true. And…?

“the number within the population as any given time is pretty much the same.” – katiegrrl0

That’s true, too. Polls indicate that about two percent of the population is gay.

“why does anyone care?” - katiegrrl0

We don’t.

In this country, at least, you are free to live your life as you see fit without the approval of me or anyone else.

And I am free to continue to believe that such lifestyles are sinful and do not have to stand idly by while secular doctrines are forced upon my children and grandchildren in their schools. Nor do I have to accept the politically-correct agenda on an increasing liberal population and I am free to resist whatever changes they may try to force upon society.

“we are such a small piece of the pie? my real question is why to many heterosexuals fear us so much?” - katiegrrl0

As already mentioned, no one is afraid of you.

This is a really pathetic attempt to discredit those that disagree with you as being unreasonably frightened of gay people for some reason no one is able to articulate.

 

[Singularity]

“Nowhere in Loving v Virginia does it specifically say 'heterosexual marriage', so your context argument is nullified.” – Singularity

And nowhere in “Loving vs. Virginia” does it state anything about homosexual marriage. The only question that “Loving” addressed was the issue of marriage between races. In this case it had to do with a difference in races, not same-sex marriage.

As the case only dealt with heterosexual marriage between mixed races, there is nothing in Warren’s comments to even remotely suggest--given both the subject and the times--to think that his comments in anyway addressed homosexual marriages.

So once again, context please!

Your error here is in placing the words into a nonexistent context. At no point did Warren specifically mention the words 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. The term he used was simply 'marriage', which you and the others who oppose same-sex marriage mistakenly assume means 'heterosexual marriage'. The Court did not define marriage in the manner that you are seeking it to be defined, and if the Court wishes it to be defined as such, they must render a more specific opinion. Since they have not done so, your context argument is bunk. In addition, it is legal inclusion into the institution that homosexuals are seeking, and the Court has offered no specific exclusion which would render Warren's opinion clearly defined in the manner that you want it to (ie, the Supreme Court rules homosexual marriage as legally unrecognizable).

“Certainly. The city of Sodom, correct? My biblical history is a bit rusty, but weren't they facing the wrath of your deity simply because they engaged in homosexuality?” – Singularity

No.

Homosexuality was prevalent but not their only sin. And Sodom most certainly had nothing to do with homosexual marriage which is what my comments were addressing.

Ahh. So Sodom did not practice homosexual marriage, just homosexuality. Again, my knowledge of biblical tales is very rusty.

“Then there is the Roman Empire, which did recognize homosexual marriages at one point in their history.” – Singularity

Homosexuality was common in Rome and many older men kept young boys as their sexual playthings. However, this was not a “marriage”.

What you are referring to is pederasty, which was practiced more by the Greeks and the early Roman empire. Under the Republic, the pater familias did enjoy unions which were equivalent to marriages. Remember that marriage is a malleable institution throughout history; your version of marriage would be remarkably different if you were to visit the historical time frame in question. As Frakes writes, "The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against." (Source: Why the Romans Are Important in the Debate About Gay Marriage).

However, we don't have to stop at the Roman Republic. Consider the woman-woman marriages documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa. (Source: http://semgai.free.fr/doc_et_pdf/africa_A4.pdf).

So yes, there has been same-sex marriage unions historically.

“And what about polygamy? That is certainly one of the different forms of marriage I am speaking of.” – Singularity

Polygamy was certainly practiced but was not “approved” of nor endorsed by God as evidenced by Genesis 1 and Matthew 19.

You will also find examples of murder, lying, stealing, raping, and incest within the Bible, as well. And none of these things are approved of by God, either. They are in the Bible simply because they happened, not because God approved of such matters.

And yet, there most certainly have been polygamous marriages throughout history. The error here stems from the mistaken belief that the Christian God somehow 'controls' the marriage definition, and that marriage is a Christian institution exclusively. As I showed you, this is wrong. Marriage has existed in many different non-Christian cultures, and in many different forms. It is in your failure to acknowledge this to which I am addressing.

“I have seen no proof anywhere beyond the word of your particular scriptures and their supporters which makes this claim. I am not knocking your religion, but you must realize that other cultures that did not worship in your way also engaged in marriage. While it is certainly acceptable that you believe that marriage is tied to your deity, I do not.” – Singularity

While I am fully aware of the fact that “other cultures that did not worship in [my] way also engaged in marriage”--a fact I’ve mentioned approximately half-a-dozen times now in my own post--it does not change the fact that even in those cultures that do not share my beliefs they have still instituted a traditional union that has always existed between men and women exclusively.

As I showed you, this is in error. Marriage has always been a malleable institution. It has included not only multiple participants, but same-sex ones. See the link I provided above for more clarification if needed. I can certainly find plenty more regarding polygamy, but I think you get the idea.

“Than you agree that marriage has always been malleable, too, as it has included not only one man and one woman, but two women and one man, two men, two women, and many other combinations throughout various civilizations in our history.” – Singularity

Absolutely not.

There have certainly been polygamous instances where one man has been married to more than one woman and even rarer cultures that have allowed one woman to be married to more than one man. But in every instance this was still a marriage between men and women.

Ahh, so now we are changing the definition to the plural - men and women, not simply a man and a woman. While yes, there have been plenty of cultures throughout history where polygamy is a form of marriage, the failure to recognize that marital unions have included the same-sex form as well is where your argument comes up short, I believe. However, I think you will enjoy the links I provided you. They should clear up the matter.

And these marriages were meant to last a lifetime. That all changed with the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1970 (at least in this country). Prior to that, divorce was very rare.

It’s only been in the last fifteen years or so that marriage between the same-sex has even been considered.

But as a general rule, marriage throughout time, culture, country, religion, etc has been between one man and one woman for life (with the notable exception mentioned above).

Homosexuality has not played a part in marriage history.

Again, incorrect (see above).

Then you speak of only a bastardized version of marriage that will only serve to weaken the institution just as the introduction of no-fault divorce did.

No, I speak of inclusion. You speak of exclusion, and extrapolation based on nothing more than your subjectively moral belief system. Your belief is that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore pratitioners are undeserving of legal participation in the institution. I, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with homosexuality. There has been no scientific unbiased study detailing any sort of mental deficiency among homosexual population; in addition, the behavior is widely seen throughout many species besides our own. And while I certainly respect your belief, I oppose it the very minute you attempt to impose it upon the rest of us. Homosexuals should be able to marry the partner of their choosing provided they are both rational, autonomous individuals - same as heterosexual couplings.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Because you are different? Because they see themselves in you? My personal favorite is religious brainwashing. I've never met an athiest who opposes gay marriage.

yeah isn't that the truth. thumbs up on that one/

 

[katiegrrl0]

“the real issue is that most people homosexuals and heterosexuals stick their noses into everyone else's business.” – katiegrrl0

Not true.

I really don’t care what you do or how you choose to live your life. That is between you and God (even if you don’t believe in Him).

However, when the homosexual community began attempts to change marriage into something it has never been before the floodgates of controversy were opened and I have every right to stand up and fight for the traditional values that made this country the greatest in the world.

And I will continue to exercise my right with every opportunity that presents itself.

“the issue is that there are now and always have been homosexuals.” - katiegrrl0

That’s true. And…?

“the number within the population as any given time is pretty much the same.” – katiegrrl0

That’s true, too. Polls indicate that about two percent of the population is gay.

“why does anyone care?” - katiegrrl0

We don’t.

In this country, at least, you are free to live your life as you see fit without the approval of me or anyone else.

And I am free to continue to believe that such lifestyles are sinful and do not have to stand idly by while secular doctrines are forced upon my children and grandchildren in their schools. Nor do I have to accept the politically-correct agenda on an increasing liberal population and I am free to resist whatever changes they may try to force upon society.

“we are such a small piece of the pie? my real question is why to many heterosexuals fear us so much?” - katiegrrl0

As already mentioned, no one is afraid of you.

This is a really pathetic attempt to discredit those that disagree with you as being unreasonably frightened of gay people for some reason no one is able to articulate.

between me and god. oh my gosh you must be kidding. :lol:

sure many are afraid of us or there would be no problem accepting who we are. there must be some reason for it.

well other than fear what is the problem point to something!!

 

[Goshin]

That there have, in history, been some few cultures that have, during certain limited periods of time, tolerated homosexual "marriages" (usually only among the "eccentric" aristocracy) in limited numbers... in no way changes the fact that marriage has overwhelmingly been a male-female bonding with family/children as a priority issue thoughout history.

Regardless of whether it was monogamy or polygamy, marriage has been about male and female and the children they produce in almost every culture throughout almost all of history. Even cultures like certain specific Greek states that were very tolerant of homosexuality almost universally reserved marriage for male/female. Much the same during the brief periods when Rome tolerated a few gay marriages mostly among the aristocracy.

The fact remains that however much specifics may have varied, male/female/children has been the norm for marriage historically, to a degree far in excess of 99%.

 

[The Baron]

“Your error here is in placing the words into a nonexistent context. At no point did Warren specifically mention the words 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'.” – Singularity

The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.

If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.

However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.

You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.

“Under the Republic, the pater familias did enjoy unions which were equivalent to marriages.” – Singularity

Based on what?

“As Frakes writes, ‘The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against.’” – Singularity

Which is not evidence that homosexual marriages existed. It simply states that there were no laws against it. The very next sentence of your own source declares, “Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly…”.

While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.

Currently, there are no laws that prevent the space shuttle from landing on my head. This in no way suggest that the space shuttle has ever landed on my head...there are just no laws against it.

“However, we don't have to stop at the Roman Republic. Consider the woman-woman marriages documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.” – Singularity

From your own source:

1. “A discussion of woman-womanmarriage on “the Slave Coast” (between the Benin and Volta rivers) forms a laterchapter in this volume. With so many men working elsewhere, it would be unusual forcentral African women not to turn to each other”

The position assumes that lesbian marriages must have existed with many men working elsewhere but offers no proof.

2. “Nadel (1955) did not mention any such link in contrasting two other Sudanese peoples: the Heiban in which there is “no expected corollary of homosexual acts” (i.e., no homosexual role, and particularly no connection to occupational specialization as healers), and the Otoro who recognize(d) a special transvestitic role in which men dress and live as women, but also are not especially likely to be healers (p. 677). Nadel (1947: 242) also mentioned transvestitic homosexuality among the Moro, Nyima and Tira, 13and reported that Korongo [Krongo] londo and Mesakin tubele could marry a
male for the brideprice of one goat (1947: 285). The generally young husband in these marriages might also obtain female wives:
‘Wife’ and ‘husband’ lie together and keep a common household. The
‘marriages’ rarely last long: the ‘husband’ is as a rule a young man who will
outgrow his homosexual learnings, or who had been induced to play this part by the promise of an easy life. He would soon tire of the unnatural life and abandon his male ‘wife’. The fact that he had lived in this homosexual union does not disqualify him for marriage in the eyes of the women. In fact, I heard of two Mesakin men who had each for a time lives with two ‘wives’, one male and one female. (285)”

So for the price of a goat, a male can “marry” a transvestite male for a time and then leave him to marry a female.

I can’t help but notice that your own source uses the terms “wife” and “husband” and “marriage” in quotations.

Certainly this is the same time of life-long committed relationship that an actual marriage is really all about, right?

Obviously, we are not even close to talking about the same thing regardless of how the author chooses to describe these relationships.

3. “Another commander, Ganga, told Evans-Pritchard (1970:1431) that “there were somemen who although they had female wives, still married boys.”

This is pederasty. Not marriage.

4. “Signorini (1971) reported that, in contemporary Ghana, Nzema men (who
traditionally are forest cultivators around the mouth of the Tano River) marry attractive young men for “social, not sexual consumption.” They speak frankly about attraction to the physical beauty, character, and oratorical skills of their partners. They “fall in love,” contract relationships, and share beds, but persistently denied (to Signorini) that they committed ‘sodomy.’”

This is homosexual marriage? Any marriage would necessarily mean the consummation of that marriage. But here…?

Look, this is getting boring. Needless to say, your sources are extremely weak.

“So yes, there has been same-sex marriage unions historically.” – Singularity

Not that you’ve been able to prove.

“As I showed you, this is wrong. Marriage has existed in many different non-Christian cultures, and in many different forms. It is in your failure to acknowledge this to which I am addressing.” – Singularity

Then, frankly, you are not even reading my post. I’ve said the same thing in my post no. 71, 73, 90, and 101.

Pay attention!

“And yet, there most certainly have been polygamous marriages throughout history.” - Singularity

Which I have also pointed out.

"The error here stems from the mistaken belief that the Christian God somehow 'controls' the marriage definition, and that marriage is a Christian institution exclusively.” – Singularity

He does control the definition. Whether people live by that definition is another matter entirely.

“As I showed you, this is in error. Marriage has always been a malleable institution. It has included not only multiple participants, but same-sex ones. See the link I provided above for more clarification if needed. I can certainly find plenty more regarding polygamy, but I think you get the idea.” – Singularity

Just damn.

You really just aren’t paying attention, at all.

Go back and read my post no. 101...again!

“Ahh, so now we are changing the definition to the plural - men and women, not simply a man and a woman.” – Singularity

Go back and read my post no. 90 (for the very first time, apparently!) and you will see that I used the plural, thank you.

“While yes, there have been plenty of cultures throughout history where polygamy is a form of marriage, the failure to recognize that marital unions have included the same-sex form as well is where your argument comes up short, I believe. However, I think you will enjoy the links I provided you. They should clear up the matter.” – Singularity

You don’t seem to be reading my post much less your own sources.

“No, I speak of inclusion. You speak of exclusion, and extrapolation based on nothing more than your subjectively moral belief system.” – Singularity

And your beliefs are based on what? Political correctness?

“Your belief is that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore pratitioners are undeserving of legal participation in the institution. I, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with homosexuality. There has been no scientific unbiased study detailing any sort of mental deficiency among homosexual population” – Singularity

Then how do you explain all those in the mental health professions treating those with same-sex desires?

“…the behavior is widely seen throughout many species besides our own.” – Singularity

Yes, animal behavior is a complete justification for human behavior!

Animals also eat their young and kill their mates after copulation.

Is it your contention that these practices should be adopted by humans, as well?

“And while I certainly respect your belief, I oppose it the very minute you attempt to impose it upon the rest of us.” – Singularity

Make no mistake about it. In any society the beliefs--moral, secular, whatever--of the majority or those in power will dictate how the rest of society lives and functions.

I happen to believe that the dictates of this country should be based upon the very Judeo-Christian ideals that this country was founded upon.

 

[The Baron]

“sure many are afraid of us or there would be no problem accepting who we are.” - katiegrrl0

You keep making this allegation without a shred of evidence.

And unless someone runs screaming from the room, slobbering at the mouth and babbling incoherently when they meet you then they are not afraid of you.

They just disagree with you.

See the difference?

 

[Goshin]

"Homophobia" is a brand of ad hominem attack intended to shut down discussion, by thus labeling those who disagree with any agenda-items put forward by the homosexual political lobby....to be blunt.

Disagreement does not equate to irrational fear.

 

[Singularity]

“Your error here is in placing the words into a nonexistent context. At no point did Warren specifically mention the words 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'.” – Singularity

The court decision specifically dealt only with heterosexual marriage.

If Warren wanted to make it plain that his remarks pertained to homosexual marriage he could have quite easily have done so.

However, since the case in no way considered homosexual marriage but only heterosexual marriage his remarks must be seen in that light.

You are attempting misconstrue Warren’s comments to imply something that simply isn’t there.

On the contrary, you - not me - is the one attempting to imply something that isn't there, specifically the type of marriage. Your error stems from your contextual confusion. The Court's decision did not specifically define marriage - there is no mention of the words 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. The Court only specifically said 'marriage', which you are misinterpreting to exclude homosexuals (ie, marriage defined by your interpretation, not the Courts or those who oppose your view). If Warren and the Court had specifically defined the components beyond entailing the institution to be a civil right, you would have an argument. As he does not do so, this argument you are attempting to describe as context fails.

““Under the Republic, the pater familias did enjoy unions which were equivalent to marriages.” – Singularity

Based on what?

Based on the article I linked to you, written by Professor Frakes.

““As Frakes writes, ‘The earliest Roman law regarding homosexuality appears to have been the Lex Scantinia that was passed by the Roman assembly at some point in the Roman Republic (perhaps in the second century BC). Although the text of this law itself has not survived, later Roman jurists of the second and third century AD describe how it outlawed the homosexual rape of young male Roman citizens. Consensual male or female homosexual unions apparently were not legislated against.’” – Singularity

Which is not evidence that homosexual marriages existed. It simply states that there were no laws against it. The very next sentence of your own source declares, “Although there is scholarly debate, Roman literature of the republic and early empire suggests that men who engaged in consensual liaisons were often mocked as unmanly…”.

While homosexual liaisons were certainly practiced, there is no evidence that there was anything of a homosexual marriage in Roman times.

On the contrary, the reputable source I linked specifically said that unions were not legislated against, which you in turn mistakenly to mean that none existed. This means people were free to engage in the type of unions that they pleased, and by pater familias most certainly those type of unions existed. Of course, your attempted portrayal of the fact that those unions were mocked as evidence that they didn't exist in the first place is a stretch, based on zero information other than your mistaken extrapolation.

You also mistakenly believe that something as fascinating as a shuttle landing on your head must not have happened simply based on the absence of a law against it. If homosexuality was practiced - and indeed it was - then most certainly the unions between same sex couples existed, as there was no law against this. If it were outlawed, the Lex Scantinia would have mentioned such a thing. Scholars can find no evidence of this, and given the early republic's belief in Greek pederasty, such unions were undoubtedly practiced. Indeed, one has to look no further than the later Roman Empire which outlawed such unions as proof that they did exist, for if they did not, there would be no reason to specifically refuse them by law.

““However, we don't have to stop at the Roman Republic. Consider the woman-woman marriages documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa.” – Singularity

From your own source:

1. “A discussion of woman-womanmarriage on “the Slave Coast” (between the Benin and Volta rivers) forms a laterchapter in this volume. With so many men working elsewhere, it would be unusual forcentral African women not to turn to each other”

The position assumes that lesbian marriages must have existed with many men working elsewhere but offers no proof.

2. “Nadel (1955) did not mention any such link in contrasting two other Sudanese peoples: the Heiban in which there is “no expected corollary of homosexual acts” (i.e., no homosexual role, and particularly no connection to occupational specialization as healers), and the Otoro who recognize(d) a special transvestitic role in which men dress and live as women, but also are not especially likely to be healers (p. 677). Nadel (1947: 242) also mentioned transvestitic homosexuality among the Moro, Nyima and Tira, 13and reported that Korongo [Krongo] londo and Mesakin tubele could marry a
male for the brideprice of one goat (1947: 285). The generally young husband in these marriages might also obtain female wives:
‘Wife’ and ‘husband’ lie together and keep a common household. The
‘marriages’ rarely last long: the ‘husband’ is as a rule a young man who will
outgrow his homosexual learnings, or who had been induced to play this part by the promise of an easy life. He would soon tire of the unnatural life and abandon his male ‘wife’. The fact that he had lived in this homosexual union does not disqualify him for marriage in the eyes of the women. In fact, I heard of two Mesakin men who had each for a time lives with two ‘wives’, one male and one female. (285)”

Which proves my point exactly, that marriage between same sex couples did exist.

“So for the price of a goat, a male can “marry” a transvestite male for a time and then leave him to marry a female.

I can’t help but notice that your own source uses the terms “wife” and “husband” and “marriage” in quotations.

Certainly this is the same time of life-long committed relationship that an actual marriage is really all about, right?

Yet it does constitute marriage. Your error stems from your failure to recognize that 'marriage' has always been a malleable institution, which my sources have pointed out rather well. Your mistaken belief that marriage is simply something that has always existed between one man and one woman flies in the face of the sources I just linked, and I haven't even begun to link those dealing with polygamous unions.

“Obviously, we are not even close to talking about the same thing regardless of how the author chooses to describe these relationships.

That's becoming obvious. I am referring to the fact that marriage has always been a malleable institution depending on historical time period, whereas you believe marriage has always been an institution defined by your particular belief systems.

“3. “Another commander, Ganga, told Evans-Pritchard (1970:1431) that “there were somemen who although they had female wives, still married boys.”

This is pederasty. Not marriage.

No, the article specifically says it is marriage. Pederasty is an entirely different construct. In addition, pederasty is specifically defined historically as pederasty, not as marriage. The source I linked to you specifically defines this union as marriage.

“4. “Signorini (1971) reported that, in contemporary Ghana, Nzema men (who
traditionally are forest cultivators around the mouth of the Tano River) marry attractive young men for “social, not sexual consumption.” They speak frankly about attraction to the physical beauty, character, and oratorical skills of their partners. They “fall in love,” contract relationships, and share beds, but persistently denied (to Signorini) that they committed ‘sodomy.’”

This is homosexual marriage? Any marriage would necessarily mean the consummation of that marriage. But here…?

Again, you mistakenly define 'marriage' according to your belief system. This is question-begging, as you automatically assume that the act of consummation which one culture holds as a tenet of marriage eliminates those unions who did not practice it for every marriage. As I mentioned all along, marriage is defined differently according to historical cultures.

“Look, this is getting boring. Needless to say, your sources are extremely weak.

Incorrect. My sources show beyond the shadow of a doubt that same-sex marriages did, in fact, exist. Your denial illustrates that you are not interested in learning, you are more interested in solidifying your position despite whatever evidence is presented. I've linked you sources proving my point. You've provided nothing but rhetoric and weak rebuttals. However, if you have a reputable source that says same-sex marriage has never existed in our past, i'd love to read it.

 

[Gardener]

"Homophobia" is a brand of ad hominem attack intended to shut down discussion .

Yet somehow, by some absolutely incredible miracle of God, the discussion is not shut down at all and goes on and on and on anyway.

 

[Singularity]

““So yes, there has been same-sex marriage unions historically.” – Singularity

Not that you’ve been able to prove.

“As I showed you, this is wrong. Marriage has existed in many different non-Christian cultures, and in many different forms. It is in your failure to acknowledge this to which I am addressing.” – Singularity

Then, frankly, you are not even reading my post. I’ve said the same thing in my post no. 71, 73, 90, and 101.

Pay attention!

Yet you continuously deny in the face of the evidence presented which specifically supports my claims that such claims are incorrect, meaning your argument is built around solidifying your position rather than learning from this debate.

Different forms of marriage have existed in our history. It has always been an institution that is malleable on constituted various makeups, including same-sex members. As long as you continue to deny this with no evidence supporting it, then your argument remains mere unfactual rhetoric. As I said, if you have evidence, i'd love to read it. Scholarly, unbiased evidence, I mean.

"The error here stems from the mistaken belief that the Christian God somehow 'controls' the marriage definition, and that marriage is a Christian institution exclusively.” – Singularity

He does control the definition. Whether people live by that definition is another matter entirely.

And of course, "he" does not exist according to me. And "he" could be someone different according to whatever culture or time period you found yourself in. Marriage is not the exclusive property of your religion.

“As I showed you, this is in error. Marriage has always been a malleable institution. It has included not only multiple participants, but same-sex ones. See the link I provided above for more clarification if needed. I can certainly find plenty more regarding polygamy, but I think you get the idea.” – Singularity

Just damn.

You really just aren’t paying attention, at all.

Go back and read my post no. 101...again!

Then stop denying that marriage has always been a changing institution. Your failure to grasp this and repeat your same circular argument results in my reiterations to show you where I disagree, whereupon you apparently agree with me, then mention something entirely different.

Until you recognize that marriage is and always has been a malleable institution, it is you - not me - who is failing to pay attention. Nice attempt, but it won't work.

“Ahh, so now we are changing the definition to the plural - men and women, not simply a man and a woman.” – Singularity

Go back and read my post no. 90 (for the very first time, apparently!) and you will see that I used the plural, thank you.

And yet, you continue to deny the fact that marriage has always been changeable and included different makeups, including those of the same-sex.

“While yes, there have been plenty of cultures throughout history where polygamy is a form of marriage, the failure to recognize that marital unions have included the same-sex form as well is where your argument comes up short, I believe. However, I think you will enjoy the links I provided you. They should clear up the matter.” – Singularity

You don’t seem to be reading my post much less your own sources.

If you wish to present a debate, please let me know. If you wish to continue claiming that I haven't read my own sources which specifically prove you wrong, then i'm sure you don't mind if I chalk your lack of advancing the topic to your concession. Either way, I await your response.

“No, I speak of inclusion. You speak of exclusion, and extrapolation based on nothing more than your subjectively moral belief system.” – Singularity

And your beliefs are based on what? Political correctness?

Based on my morality, political ideology, and factual information, the latter of which proves my point.

“Your belief is that homosexuality is wrong, and therefore pratitioners are undeserving of legal participation in the institution. I, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with homosexuality. There has been no scientific unbiased study detailing any sort of mental deficiency among homosexual population” – Singularity

Then how do you explain all those in the mental health professions treating those with same-sex desires?

'Treating'? In what way, you mean counseling? I'd say this is obvious. Homosexuality and it's practitioners are often mistreated as children and adults, mostly for the very same reasons you and I are arguing. They simply aren't accepted, and often times abused for their behavior being viewed as 'wrong'. Their counseling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality being 'wrong' or 'mentally imbalanced'. I'm sure you've read Captain Courtesy's post on this. It's quite legendary on this board.

“…the behavior is widely seen throughout many species besides our own.” – Singularity

Yes, animal behavior is a complete justification for human behavior!

Animals also eat their young and kill their mates after copulation.

Is it your contention that these practices should be adopted by humans, as well?

No, but it kills your argument that the behavior is 'unnatural' or indicative of something mentally wrong with homosexuality.

“And while I certainly respect your belief, I oppose it the very minute you attempt to impose it upon the rest of us.” – Singularity

Make no mistake about it. In any society the beliefs--moral, secular, whatever--of the majority or those in power will dictate how the rest of society lives and functions.

I happen to believe that the dictates of this country should be based upon the very Judeo-Christian ideals that this country was founded upon.

And in our society, laws are instituted to protect those from tyranny, oppression, and to secure our freedoms. Your belief that whatever society's majority has the power to dictate how others live their lives is quite fine for those purely democratic institutions, but that isn't the United States. We are a representative republic, and as such, our laws are designed not simply for endorsing the demands of the majority.

Your belief that Judeo Christian ideals should dictate our country is fine as long as it is mere opinion. Since I am not a Christian, I am happy to keep 'separation of church and state' and the Lockeian ideals that our founding father's embraced alive and well in my view of America.

 

[Singularity]

Yet somehow, by some absolutely incredible miracle of God, the discussion is not shut down at all and goes on and on and on anyway.

I totally agree Gardener. Good point.

I have to give props to Goshin, too. He makes incredibly intelligent arguments. Therefore I thanked you both! :2wave:

 

[Oftencold]

Here's an idea. The Heterosexuals invested thousands of years evolving the institution of marriage. Why not evolve your own, and stop glomming onto theirs?

 

[Oftencold]

your right allows you to marry the person of your choice. we do not have that option to marry who we choice. the government is telling us who we have to select from. but you knew that and think it is a joke. it isn't a joke. so this statement i respond to is infantile.

As I took pains to explain, I cannot marry just anyone I'd like. Often for the annoying fact that they have husbands.

A heck of a lot of people can't marry their first choice.

The way Life works, is that we don't get most of what we want. Most of us can accept this.

I want slaves. (No Racist I, I want them in a variety of shapes,sizes and colors.) It seems perfectly natural to me that what we allow to exisit in Society as the Criminal Classes should be sold as slaves.

Shall I proclaim my rights violated because I can't purchase a human being? What if the subject is a willing adult?

Again, we have to realize that the world does not revolve around our little, fashionable foibles and fantasies.

 

[katiegrrl0]

“sure many are afraid of us or there would be no problem accepting who we are.” - katiegrrl0

You keep making this allegation without a shred of evidence.

And unless someone runs screaming from the room, slobbering at the mouth and babbling incoherently when they meet you then they are not afraid of you.

They just disagree with you.

See the difference?

you have yet to tell me other than fear what are the reasons that same sex marriage is such a big deal?

if you say as Goshin alluded too that it is tradition, why did that tradition start?
if you say that it is biblical than that is based on fear and punishment from this supposed pie in the sky god. it hasn't done anything about gays and lesbians yet so what makes one believe that this god has any interest?
so tell me what other than fear has the hetero world wanting to stand in peoples bedrooms and find out who is screwing who?

 

[katiegrrl0]

"Homophobia" is a brand of ad hominem attack intended to shut down discussion, by thus labeling those who disagree with any agenda-items put forward by the homosexual political lobby....to be blunt.

Disagreement does not equate to irrational fear.

i did not say homophobia. i said fear. that can mean many things beyond the homophobia idea. fear can be of chance. fear can be that some don't want children exposed to gays and lesbians in relationship. fear can be that some don't want same sex couples applying for marriage in their churches. fear does not mean a gripping fear or an irrational fear of gays or lesbians. so i am not trying to do as you say. i am trying to find out why some hetrosexuals are so opposed to same sex marriage beyond fear?

 

[katiegrrl0]

Here's an idea. The Heterosexuals invested thousands of years evolving the institution of marriage. Why not evolve your own, and stop glomming onto theirs?

stop giving special rights to married couples that singles and same sex couples do not receive. the tax breaks to married people is unfair to everyone that is not married. it is the government cheating singles, when we are not singles at all and we do not get the same tax advantages as married. when that happens then there would be no need for same sex marriage. make the playing field equal for all that are married or classified as single. why shoud the single ones be cheated?

 

[katiegrrl0]

As I took pains to explain, I cannot marry just anyone I'd like. Often for the annoying fact that they have husbands.

A heck of a lot of people can't marry their first choice.

The way Life works, is that we don't get most of what we want. Most of us can accept this.

I want slaves. (No Racist I, I want them in a variety of shapes,sizes and colors.) It seems perfectly natural to me that what we allow to exisit in Society as the Criminal Classes should be sold as slaves.

Shall I proclaim my rights violated because I can't purchase a human being? What if the subject is a willing adult?

Again, we have to realize that the world does not revolve around our little, fashionable foibles and fantasies.

you make poor comparisons and they are not even worth being debated. they make no sense to the debate.

the point is that the puritanical US with have maybe 10 more years that same sex marriage is not legal across your entire nation, soon all the barriers to it will be tumbled over. enjoy this decade while you can. things are changing. the youth understand that discrimination is wrong. the churshes are much less influential than they have been. the religions numbers are down. it all seems to be working in our direction.

 

[Oftencold]

it all seems to be working in our direction.

Messilina thought much the same.

Oh, and I'd advise against relying on the understanding and easy-going judgment of the young. The same influences that have made so many of them narcissistic, indolent and ignorant have made them viciously judgmental.

But as I've said, and you cannot rebut, you have exactly the same right to marry as anyone else. It is exceptional privilege that you're seeking.

 

[Gwendoline]

Oh, and I'd advise against relying on the understanding and easy-going judgment of the young. The same influences that have made so many of them narcissistic, indolent and ignorant have made them viciously judgmental.

You think so many of our youth are "viciously judgmental"? I'm inclined to think that vicious judgmentalness takes a while to mature... and rather than it being a trait of our youth, it's more often found in crabby adults - for example, perhaps like some of the people who can't think of anything nice to say about our youth of today.

 

[Orion]

I find it saddening that the right will use government power as an indicator of marriage validity, even though plenty of people are marriage in an "unofficial" sense. I always hear complaints from both sides of the partisan coin about how rights are violated, and people rely on the government to baby everyone... and yet, they will determine a marriage invalid because it doesn't have the rubber stamp of bureaucracy.

Marriage means more than that to a lot of people, gay and straight. The rubber stamp is to give state benefits, but the ceremony and the invitation of family is way more important to a lot of couples.

 

[Ethereal]

Once again, the libertarian solution seems like the most sensible course of action, i.e. doing away with state-sanctioned marriages altogether.

They serve no purpose whatsoever and they are discriminatory by their very nature, which I feel is a violation of the equal protection clause. No one has the right to receive positive governmental and social recognition of their lifestyle choices.

 

[moe]

To the very best of my knowledge I know that my own marriage is recognized everywhere in the world just as every other heterosexual marriage.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

At least as far as tax purposes go, If you are a US citizen and your spouse is not you can not claim them on your w-4 form. Says so right on the form. I am married to a Filipina and I cannot claim her because she is not a US citizen. As far as the Government is concerned I am single at least as far as tax purposes go

How it applies in other areas I do not know. I have heard that there are work arounds for this like Tax ID numbers for the spouse and what not but have never looked into it. By current law marriage is what the Government says it is.

Moe

 

[Goshin]

Once again, the libertarian solution seems like the most sensible course of action, i.e. doing away with state-sanctioned marriages altogether.

They serve no purpose whatsoever and they are discriminatory by their very nature, which I feel is a violation of the equal protection clause. No one has the right to receive positive governmental and social recognition of their lifestyle choices.

In a perfect world, I would prefer this solution.

Marriage would be, in essence:
1. A private contract between two individuals, defining their relationship and matters regarding children and property.
2. A religious issue, if the individuals in question are religious.
3. A family and social matter, in that all families and communities invariably choose how they will respond to a new couple/family based on the communities' most-common-denominator of values or lack thereof.

Divorce could be handled as a breach-of-contract matter.

Still, without an actual massive sea-change of our political system to a libertarian format overall, I don't see government giving up its hold on ANYTHING, let alone something they can manipulate for their advantage like the marriage issue and related matters.