Amendment # 28 to ban Gay marriage!

quote:

---

I agree that gay marriage ought to be allowed, or at the very least civil unions (a rose by any other name?)

---

More like a water fountain used by only one set of people.

quote:

---

You have to remember that marriage was a legal contract designed for people of opposite sexes. There was no serious history anywhere of same sex couples desiring or trying to get married until recently.

---

That's debatable, at best.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

While bigotry certainly plays a part in wanting to keep the rights found within marriage out of the hands of same sex couples AT THIS POINT IN TIME, you are making your own case weaker by making it seem like it always had been.Marriage laws were not constructed to shut gays out. It simply was not even considered nor desired by gay communities until recently.

quote:

---

That's debatable, at best.

---

Actually your link said EXACTLY what I said. There was NO SERIOUS HISTORY ANYWHERE of same sex couples desiring or trying to get married until recently.I have to say I am kind of disappointed in this tactic, as it is unwarranted and unnecessary to make the case for gay marriage.You will note that the anthropologists listed the societies where same sex unions have been found in history: "sanctified same-sex unions in the fourth century in Christianity" and to the Greeks and Romans applying the concept of marriage to same-sex couples, not to mention the Native American berdache tradition in which males married males. "The Xian unions of the 4th century are HIGHLY debatable. Having read the literature it is NOT definitively marriage at all. It looks more like blood brothers, or adoption. And as it stands there is no evidence that it was practiced much at all.The Greeks and Romans and Native Americans... they also missed some African tribal customs... did not have PERMANENT SAME SEX UNIONS SIMILAR TO MARRIAGE. The ceremonies may have been similar, and certainly any sex within them was the same, but the concept was very different than what we call marriage today, and what that concept has been for heterosexual couples within those very civilizations!I posted a link on this, I think earlier within this thread. The unions they are describing were considered temporary unions until partners matured and married women at some later time. I might add that the only two which could possibly reflect on western concepts of marriage were millenia ago and were not common.As anthropologists they were being somewhat disengenuous to make it seem like actual marriages were being performed... at least Bush is not a anthropologist, so he has an excuse.However, their point, which was that heterosexual marriages do not face threats from same sex unions is accurate. There is nothing in history to suggest that at all.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I have to say I am kind of disappointed in this tactic, as it is unwarranted and unnecessary to make the case for gay marriage.

---

Disappointed in this tactic? You posted an unsupported statement, and I linked to an article that disagreed. Yikes, watch out for my underhanded debate stylinz'.

quote:

---

I posted a link on this, I think earlier within this thread. The unions they are describing were considered temporary unions until partners matured and married women at some later time. I might add that the only two which could possibly reflect on western concepts of marriage were millenia ago and were not common.

---

Do you remember whereabouts in the thread it was? I'd like to see it, because I haven't heard this before and would like to see some documentation.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 03-10-2004]

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

Disappointed in this tactic?

---

Whoops, that sentence was a relic I accidentally left behind. I originally had a longer discussion of what it meant.The tactic I was referring to was appealing to anthropological arguments like the ones those in the article were making. I find them disengenuous as they serve as NO reflection on what went into formulating US marriage laws and traditions, or what has existed throughout the majority of the world as a concept of marriage down through history. This seems like revisionist tactics.I mean really, how were US concepts of marriage possibly influenced by a small subset of ancient Greek, Roman, African, or Native American marriage customs (even if those were similar)?Such arguments are also (which I did state) unwarranted and unnecessary to make the case for gay marriage. I feel they hinder the case.

quote:

---

You posted an unsupported statement,

---

Actually it wasn't unsupported if you had read throughout the thread. My earlier post which included links on the history of both polygamy and same sex marriage was Message 68.Of course a big OOPS, and apology, is required on my part. I had not read entirely through the same sex history section and on reviewing that section I realize I misrepresented their description of the Native American and Greek marriages.According to the link I cited the Native American and Greek (hellenistic) unions were long term.While reading that section of the link I had made an assumption of what they would say based on my own studies which did not indicate the Native American unions were permanent physical/sexual relationships (allowing marriage to other women for children), and the Greek ones refered to the unions between older men/younger men (which were temporary). My bad for making those two assumptions.Not that my error makes that big a difference to my criticism of their assertion.AT BEST, we see that in ancient Greece and certain Native American tribes there were some permanent same sex unions... the other examples that your link mentioned however, were certainly NOT.AT WORST, none of them are really good examples. The Native American example in particular involved men that were considered two sex, and when married became women. They were not same sex unions at all in their conception. And I am not sure the Greek one was much different. I admit I am not sure which Greek ceremonies my own link was talking about though (assuming they meant the pederastic kind which are temporary) and so I'll do some more digging on that.If you can dig up any evidence of other cultures that have had or do have permanent marriage ceremonies between same sex partners I am totally open to it. I have simply never found such a thing in any of my research (and I have looked), and the ones your link cited were not real (except maybe one hellenistic greek practice?).That is hardly convincing evidence that marriage is or has been something other than a hetero practice. But like I have always said... who cares?The question seems to me whether the US government is capable of handling the formation of new traditions. If not, then we're in for a very monotonous future.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

The tactic I was referring to was appealing to anthropological arguments like the ones those in the article were making. I find them disengenuous as they serve as NO reflection on what went into formulating US marriage laws and traditions, or what has existed throughout the majority of the world as a concept of marriage down through history. This seems like revisionist tactics.

---

Fair enough, and if we're just talking about US history, I agree.

quote:

---

Of course a big OOPS, and apology, is required on my part. I had not read entirely through the same sex history section and on reviewing that section I realize I misrepresented their description of the Native American and Greek marriages.

---

And an apology is returned on my part for not going through the thread carefully enough to see what you had said earlier.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

quote:

---

Fair enough, and if we're just talking about US history, I agree.

---

Well I have got to say it really counts for all of world history as well.I have just dived back through piles of refs, and as I said the Native American marriages are clearly hetero affairs, even if it is a state of mind that one is female, and the ancient Greek ones simply DID NOT EXIST.In ancient Greece there were temporary unions between older men and younger boys, but they were not the same thing as marriage. In fact often the male lover helped pick out a wife for his partner.Other than the existence of ACCEPTED Greek homosexual relationships, I have found absolutely NO evidence that gay marriages occured between grown men. So I am unsure which hellenistic practices my own link was referring to... If someone has some evidence I would appreciate it.As it stands, I have begun noticing (as I trace refrences) that the ONLY references to ancient gay marriages come from one guy... Boswell. He is the one that discovered "gay marriages" in the ancient Xian church, as well as ancient Greece. I am assuming this must be what my own link was referring to (since they were not talking about pederast unions).Unfortunately Boswell is an activist who does a very poor job making his case.But let me let a gay marriage activist speak about what can be found in history and throughout cultures. While I think he kind of pushes his points in some cases, he does a decent enough review... just beware of your eyeballs as his background is a little obnoxious... Here's the link.That is the BEST you are going to find, and it just is not reasonably capable of constructing an argument stronger than: longterm homosexual relationships have been accepted in some cultures and in a few (very few) circumstances had some ceremonial recognition, though separate from legal heterosexual unions at the time (unless sexual conversion of a partner is part of the deal).In order to make his case that they should be viewed as marriages he admits to using a contrived definition. I sympathize with his argument, but understand that critics have all the weight on their side to say it is self-serving.Definitely check the link out if you want a good review of homosexual RELATIONSHIPS throughout history.And if you find any more definitive evidence on marriage practices involving gays, please let me know.To be honest, when I first went out looking for information on this topic I assumed I was going to find as much or more evidence of gays getting married than I did. In fact, I wish I had. But I haven't.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think people should be free to do whatever they want.This will go down in history.Textbooks commenting on it like it was the 3/5's compromise.This is discrimination and it is likely to continue but in the end Homosexuals will win. It's blatant that by not letting two people be together legally is wrong. We are all equal to make choices right?To the fanatics who want it banned, God did give free will. No question about it I am a fanatic for what is right but this is not our fight, it is not our cause, people are free to sin.I can see an argument raised, murdering is illegal and murder and homosexuality are both sins. I'm not sure how I would answer if capable.I am afraid though, knowing there is always a victor and a loser, one who is for and one who is against, I'm afraid conservativism will be blamed for this in history. Forever tarnished.I think I can see where Bush is coming from but I think he realizes what is inevitable, he's fighting a losing battle in society, rightfully so, society or the world may have made it's final good choice which is sad.I know the religious, particularly in America and particularly christians don't and won't know what to think, I'm not totally sure just using basic ethics or principles as a crutch or walking stick. I know equality is true, Jews and Gentiles alike.I know a divorce will not be able to remedy the offender of sin. And it's fine for one to not recognize it as such, if of course they know of the other side, the other opinions and the reasons for their reasoning, I know some will scowl at this and rightfully so. You are human, impressed upon to form your character, your thoughts, your biases, some more than others.Where some deny, where some cannot even distinguish, the wise will know and search and smile in the end where there will be seldom but they will then know. That it's bigger than this, it's bigger than homosexuality. It's about morality in the heart, where all have opinions, some better than others.[This message has been edited by messenjaH of oNe, 03-10-2004]

---

-chris

Too late. 40-hour workweek? Minimum wage? Voting rights for women?All opposed, historicaly, by conservatives. They've been on the wrong end of the debate for some time now. Somehow I think they'll roll with this punch, too.

quote:

---

As far as I know only pigeons and seahorses are confirmed to mate for life, and even then pigeons can move on if conditions arise.

---

From what I could find, it's geese, swans, doves, and albatrosses.

quote:

---

Being black is not a lifestyle choice, homosexuality is.

---

Tell me, when your hormones started to kick in as a teenager, did you choose which gender to find sexually attractive?No?Then being hetero wasn't a lifestyle choice for you?

quote:

---

I suspect most women are, to some degree. There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that women have a significantly more fluid sexuality than men.

---

...then most men are probably bisexual, too.I mean, why would one gender be more bisexual than the other?I suspect that the fact that women show more fluidity in their sexuality is because women's sexuality has been somewhat ignored and close relationships between women where they hug and touch a lot are considered normal, while men's sexuality has always been closely monitored and any homosexual tendencies could get you beaten up or even killed.I'm speaking about US culture.

quote:

---

(this had never happened to her before because the gay subculture in which she interacted kept feeding her addiction with man hating propoganda).

---

Funny, all of the gay women I know (and I know quite a few) like men just fine. In fact, the butch ones are kinda like men in a lot of ways.Mostly, gay women don't find men sexually appealing, and do find women sexually appealing. That's pretty much the end of it.

quote:

---

so, when someone came along showing her that love and compassion she joined up. But just like the alchoholic that eventually gives up the bottle she too gave up that lifestyle.

---

No, she's a bisexual.If she was able to enjoy sexual contact with a woman at all, but now she's with a man, she's bisexual.Look, every trait we have as a species can be expressed as a bell curve. Why would sexuality be any different?A few utterly straight people at one end, a few utterly gay people at the other end, with the majority somewhere along a continum of in between.Of course, this would be heavily skewed towards the hetero, but it's still a range, not an either-or.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-10-2004]

I know. But you can turn the question around - why would men's culture demand such strict sexuality if men's sexuality was so fluid? I dunno. But while men of a certain sexual orientation are usually stimulated only by sexual imagry involving the genders they're attracted to, women are excited by sexual imagry of any gender.Obviously female choice is an important part to human reproduction, but the female's sexuality isn't insurmountable so long as physical coercion is an option. On the other hand the penis doesn't function in the absence of male arousal. Therefore there's nothing maladaptive about fluid female sexuality, whereas fluid male sexuality could have a reproductive impact.I'm just speculating. Obviously it's tricky as hell trying to explain human behavior through evolutionary means. I just thought I'd toss out some ideas.Regardless I think we agree. Whether or not it's a cultural or biological restriction, men in our culture (and most others, if not all) feel much more restricted about having "gray area" sexuality.

quote:

---

why would men's culture demand such strict sexuality if men's sexuality was so fluid?

---

This is sort of a "chicken and the egg" thing.Male sexual behavior has been considered really important for centuries; women can passively become impregnated, and therefore produce heirs, but to make those babies, a man had to be able to get it up and do his thing.And there have been cultures where male homosexuality has been quite normal and most men had male lovers, at least for a while, before marriage.

quote:

---

But while men of a certain sexual orientation are usually stimulated only by sexual imagry involving the genders they're attracted to, women are excited by sexual imagry of any gender.

---

Isn't it also true that the more homophobic a man is, the more aroused he is by homosexual imagery?I'm not sure how this fits in, though.I do know that women are not particularly excited by watching gay male sexual imagery.

quote:

---

Obviously female choice is an important part to human reproduction, but the female's sexuality isn't insurmountable so long as physical coercion is an option.

---

Right.

quote:

---

On the other hand the penis doesn't function in the absence of male arousal. Therefore there's nothing maladaptive about fluid female sexuality, whereas fluid male sexuality could have a reproductive impact.

---

Well, being bisexual wouldn't seem to be problematic for men in this case, would it?

quote:

---

I'm just speculating. Obviously it's tricky as hell trying to explain human behavior through evolutionary means. I just thought I'd toss out some ideas.

---

Right on.

quote:

---

Regardless I think we agree. Whether or not it's a cultural or biological restriction, men in our culture (and most others, if not all) feel much more restricted about having "gray area" sexuality.

---

Absolutely.

Like a cartoonish super-villain, I failed to take bisexuality into account. Curses!I think this demonstrates a useful lesson: nobody knows crap about anybody's sexuality but their own, if even that.