Marriage Debate

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

More:

Unlike some other sexual activities, sexual intercourse has rarely been made taboo on religious grounds or by government authorities, as procreation is inherently essential to the continuation to the species or of any particular genetic line, which is considered to be a positive factor, and indeed, enables most societies to continue in the first place.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

More:

This is not evidence. This is the dementated raving of a same-sex marriage opponent providing nothing but the same tired rhetoric you have been spouting.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

More:

...U.S. District Judge Gary Taylor last year ruled against the couple, saying the government's desire to promote procreation is a valid reason for infringing on the rights of gays. The couple appealed the ruling.

But Judge Jerome Farris of the appellate court agreed with Taylor's argument. "I think marriage is a bundle of sticks and sticks include procreation," he said.....

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

Private Matters, Public Concern: Procreation Issues in Singapore

 

[Huntster]

This is not evidence. This is the dementated raving of a same-sex marriage opponent providing nothing but the same tired rhetoric you have been spouting.

Try a google search. You'll find a plethora of government concerns of all kinds regarding procreation, and it's efforts to manipulate, control, and influence it. I can go on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on for days with this.

Is thaiboxerken ready to admit that "the government has an interest in procreation"?

 

[Earthborn]

I can go on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on on and on for days with this.

Please don't. Stop flooding. You don't have to put every link in a seperate post with the same quote above it. If you want to present evidence, just put the links in a single post. "Presenting evidence" should be about making your argument convincing, not annoying.

 

[Scot C. Trypal]

I don't recall this one. I recall "We have men having sex with men, and I want it stopped."

No, this was just as the Christians were taking power in Rome and it was from a Christian leader decrying what he called “marriage” (or it may have been “marrying”; I don’t have my books or old posts here) between two men.

That would be the Italians and the Portuguese sailors, right? That document asserted that a small minority of foreigners were engaging in blasphemous acts that deserved death,. It's hardly historical support for the idea that gay marriage has been accepted in some cultures.

Not for support of the culture at large in Rome at the time. But to get a Catholic to perform the marriages (and they were called marriages, even by the people who burned the “:criminals”) and to have it done for so many men should suggest a substantial subculture.

Undoubtedly, but he wouldn't be a wife, or a husband, or a spouse, and those words did exist in those cultures. (As far as I know, "those cultures" are Greece, somewhere around the fourth century BC, but there might have been others, too.)

Sure, it was likely a different word. But who cares about words ?

And of course, the fact that he had "more rights" is proof that he wasn't married. When you get married, you lose rights. I don't have the right to sleep with anyone who isn't my wife. Before I got married, I did have that right.

No, the gay partner had more rights because he was a dude. I’m sure he’d be just as much in the dog house (or out of the house) if he slept with someone other than his spouse, husband… whatever...

In some ways, it doesn't matter, because we don't have to follow ancient example, but if we do cite ancient example, let's get it right.

agreed

There, now I’m out of here

 

[Meadmaker]

No, this was just as the Christians were taking power in Rome and it was from a Christian leader decrying what he called “marriage” (or it may have been “marrying”; I don’t have my books or old posts here) between two men.

I found the thread, but I didn't read all 25 pages, so I couldn't find the quote. I don't remember it. (The title of the thread started with "Injured by religion", and that was enough to find it on the search page.)

Not for support of the culture at large in Rome at the time. But to get a Catholic to perform the marriages (and they were called marriages, even by the people who burned the “:criminals”) and to have it done for so many men should suggest a substantial subculture.

Or a lying priest. There were plenty of "abominations" for which confessions were extracted, but which never happened. It was that post that made me realize that all quotes I have seen have been about the other guys. A lot of them sounded like, "Those guys over the hill are queers. Let's kill 'em."

A quote about someone's own culture, not describing the evil and horrible nature of acts committed by one's enemies, would just be a bit more credible. If gay marriage were anything other than an occaisional and short lived novelty, it should be possible to find one.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Let's begin here:

WTF?! I thought we were talking about USA laws and government here. Maybe I was mistaken.

With all of your flooding of links onto the forum, you still haven't provided an iota of evidence that supports the claim that the government is interested in propogating procreation with marriage. So far, the closest you've come is one federal judge, which is not the same as government legislation. In fact, this judge came up with his own opinion only in response to same-sex marriage proposals.

If the goverment was in the business of marriage for procreation reasons, I would think it would be part of the law.

 

[Huntster]

WTF?! I thought we were talking about USA laws and government here. Maybe I was mistaken.

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken :

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Unlike your own admitted ideological rants, they most certainly are.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

I included a document from the President's Council on Bioethics, but this is a world-wide question, debate, and issue, and you made no mention of "U.S." government in your challenge.

The point is that government is very much interested in procreation, in all it's forms and with all it's problems, and for obvious (to most folks, anyway) reasons.

(BTW, Earthborn, this is why flooding is sometimes necessary. Some people refuse to swim until the water is way over their heads.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

I included a document from the President's Council on Bioethics, but this is a world-wide question, debate, and issue, and you made no mention of "U.S." government in your challenge.

The president's council's opinoin is just another partisan opinion. And no, this hasn't been a worldwide discussion in this thread.

The point is that government is very much interested in procreation, in all it's forms and with all it's problems, and for obvious (to most folks, anyway) reasons.

But you haven't shown this to be true yet. Marriage isn't about procreation. Procreation is not mentioned in the vows of most people or in the legal government documents.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I included a document from the President's Council on Bioethics, but this is a world-wide question, debate, and issue, and you made no mention of "U.S." government in your challenge.

The president's council's opinoin is just another partisan opinion. And no, this hasn't been a worldwide discussion in this thread.

Yeah, right. And your "opinion has the authority of reality" (see sig line and link below).

Blah, blah, blah.

Feel free to present some credible evidence. Something in government documents that say "the government has an interest in procreation" would suffice.

I've provided links to documentation that "the government has an interest in procreation".

 

[thaiboxerken]

The President's Council on Bioethic's opinion isn't law. Find me something in the laws that are written that talk about procreation as it pertains to marriage.

You haven't provided any documentation that shows the government has an interest in procreation as pertaining to marriage, you've only found a couple of opinions of people that happen to work in or for the government. There is no mention of marriage being a way for goverment to monitor and support procreation in the laws, are there?

 

[Chanileslie]

If the title is indicative I don't need to read it since "moms & dads" do not equal marriage, children do not equal marriage.

However I will go and take a look at it - but are there anymore that you believe may be good reasons why two adults shouldn't get married?

(ETA) Had a very quick read of the first couple of pages and as I thought it is not an argument for or against marriage between two adults but is about what may or may not be the best "unit" to raise children.

Which is all well and fine, but considering that in the US, we have a 40+% rate of divorce, how many kids are being raised in that ideal anyway? And yet, kids are growing up every day just fine.

That article, I agree, is not relevent to the debate of the legality of same sex marriage. It is more a smoke screen behind which most flimsy arguments hide, "Won't anybody THINK of the CHILDREN????????????".

 

[Chanileslie]

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Nothing is being taken away from same-sex couples. It is not and has never been their right to marry. It wasn't even thought of until fairly recently.

Actually, that isn't true. Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. In many societies forms of so called gay marriage were condoned and considered an acceptable part of society. Also, many societies practiced plural marriages. So, to define marriage as always having been this, that or the other thing is absurd. Society is changing and in most cases for the better of all of society - we are more tolerant and more accepting, and that makes us a better, stronger society, IMO. Marriage as an institution needs to make that change with society, or it becomes meaningless.

If we desire true equality amongst peoples, then we must permit the same rights for everyone no matter what the color of their skin or what other consenting adults they chose to share their lives with. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter what fancy arguments it tries to hide behind.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This procreation argument is silly anyway. Even if they showed that the government had an interest in marriage because of "procreation", how the crap would allowing same-sex couples marry do anything to harm that? Would heterosexual couples stop having babies if gay people were allowed to marry?

 

[Meadmaker]

Actually, that isn't true. Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. In many societies forms of so called gay marriage were condoned and considered an acceptable part of society.

As I've noted to Scot, the documentary evidence of this assertion is sparse, at best.

I did find the quote, he mentioned, from Firmicus Maternus.

When a man marries as a woman who offers yourself to man, what does he wished, when sex has lost its significance; when the crime is one which is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed into another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, a lot of the armed with an avenging sword, but those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.

The grammar in the translation is so bad, it looks like it might be machine translated. I can't make much sense out of it. (Scot had a footnote in his post, which I didn't look up.) I'm not willing to say that this establishes the existence of same sex marriage in Imperial Rome. Based on some google searching, it seems the "men" in question may have been eunuchs, about which Firmicus wrote. I could not find any quotes or alternate translations.

A lot of people assert that same sex marriage was common in "many societies", but I would take that claim more seriously if they had ever written it down where it could be found. Burning 11 Portuguese sailors for allegedly performing secret marriage rites doesn't constitute evidence of acceptance of same sex marriage, anywhere.

 

[Huntster]

Here's the law that matters, Ken:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, Pub. L. No. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419 (Sept. 21, 1996), codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C, is a federal law of the United States passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. The law provides:
• First, it allows each state (or similar political division in the United States) to deny any marriage-like relationship between persons of the same sex which has been recognized in another state.
• Second, it explicitly recognizes for purposes of federal law that marriage is "a legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife" and by stating that spouse "refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Congressional proponents assert authority to enact the law under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution with the purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level and permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize "same-sex unions" if other states did recognize same-sex unions. Forty states have enacted laws denying the recognition of same-sex marriages, which is more than the needed number of states required to amend the United States Constitution.

Seventeen states have amended their state constitutions defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

That includes Hawaii, whose Supreme Court, in the 1993 case Baehr v Lewin, made folks realize that the acceleration they were feeling wasn't the proverbial slippery slope of a sexual revolution, but a free fall.

....no attempt to challenge the law has even reached the Supreme Court, and all lower court rulings have upheld the constitutionality of the law......

 

[Meadmaker]

I found the text in question. It’s not from Firmicus. It’s from the Codex Theodosianus, a Roman law code from 342. The atrocious grammar that I attributed to machine translation may simply have been typos when Scot entered it, or in his source.

A lot of the “history” of gay marriage in Rome that I have read on these threads seems to have originated in a 1990s book by a fellow named Boswell. Specifically, I’ve read a bunch about early Christian brotherhood ceremonies actually being gay marriage rites. That seems to be his work. However, there are those critical of his work.

http://www.galha.org/ptt/lib/hic/lauritsen.html#note11

Boswell writes: “In 342 gay marriages, which had hitherto been legal (at least de facto) and well known, were outlawed in a curiously phrased statute which some authors have regarded as entirely facetious.” [10]

In this case, Boswell does not supply either the Latin text or an English translation; he bases his absurd and anachronistic “gay marriages” interpretation solely on the verb, “nubit”. The verb, “nubere”, does indeed mean “to marry”, but in vulgar usage it can simply mean “have sex with”. The law of 342 may seem “curious”, but rather than a “facetious” law against “gay marriages”, it sounds like a deadly serious antihomosexual law carrying the death penalty. Here is a translation:

When a man submits to men, the way a woman does, what can he be seeking? where sex has lost its proper place? where the crime is one it is not profitable to know? where Venus is changed into another form? where love is sought and does not appear? We order statutes to arise, and the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those guilty of such infamous crimes, either now or in the future, may be subjected to exquisite penalties. [11]

The footnote gives the Latin, which I can’t read.

Codex Theodosianus L. IX. tit. VII, 3: Cum uir nubit in feminam uiris porrecturam, quid cupiat, ubi sexus perdidit locum? ubi scelus est id quod non proficit, scire? Ubi Uenus mutatur in alteram formam? ubi amor quaeritur, nec uidetur? Iubemus insurgere leges, armari iura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt uel qui futuri sunt rei.

Here’s another source critical of Boswell’s translation, though not addressing that specific passage:

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9411/articles/darling.html


In trying to decide whether gay marriage was accepted in Rome or elsewhere, I keep coming back to the fact that if it were, there ought to be at least one favorable reference out there. If, as is alleged, it was widely accepted in several cultures, someone should have talked about it and written it down.

 

[Random]

Sigh, forty states may have enacted laws encouraging bigotry, and this may me more than the number of states needed to enshrine bigotry into the US Constitution, but a bigotry amendment has not been added to the US Constitution yet.

As for the argument that no lower court has found these laws to be unconstitutional, are you refering to state constitutions or federal constitutions? The Courts in the state of Massachusetts have found that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is against the Massachusetts state constitution. The US Supreme Court has not heard any cases on the matter, and so arguments about lower court rulings on the US Constitutional issues are moot at this point.