Senate to rule on Gay Marriage Amendment

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
"Why is it solely for a man and woman? Qualify that comment."

Why can it also be for a gay and a gay? There's no reason for it except tax evasion.

Circular reasoning won't work on me Stew...answer the damn question. There is no logical reason why not...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Straybow
mb, I find the diversion as to whether the Greeks defined vocabulary equivalent to modern terminology to be both pedantic and assinine.

The fact is that Greeks had only heterosexual marriages despite the very wide array of sexual arrangements that included types we today would classify as "homosexual."

Xenophon's observation that "man and boy live together like married people" in some states notwithstanding, as no legally binding relationship existed. Hence the difference between marriage and other social conventions. Even within those alternate social conventions the "adult catamite" was considered an abberation (look it up, its in the materials you cited), and either tolerated or not as such.

Note that while other Greek states grew in population and power Sparta continually declined. Xenophon's ingenious formula for marriage did not foster reproduction as he expected and Sparta was barely able to field a full legion in the end.

As for changes in the social status of marriage, they are direct results of changes in the social status of women, not the other way around. Change in the social status of interracial marriage is a direct result of changes in the social status of formerly pejorated races, not the other way around. A change in the social status of "gay marriage" will not create a change in the social status of gays.

(And thus the lawyer's arguments you cited about marriage are correct in the abstract but incorrectly applied to race as a distinction; whereas the distinction between sexes is fundamental to the definition of marriage.)

Tampering with marriage is not something to be done lightly, and that is precisely what the argument from "gay rights" advocates becomes. Marriage as a social convention is debased as failure, and therefore extending the diminished priviledge to gays is no big deal.

It's not about defining vocabulary, it's about concepts.

You say the Greeks had heterosexual marriage- I say the binary distinction between heterosexual and homosexual (a concept not invented until the 19th century) did not exist for the Greeks.

So far, you have signally failed to show any evidence that heterosexuality, as it is understood by modern Western society, existed for the Ancient Greeks. It's neither pedantic nor asinine on my part, but rather a tendency of mine to rely on facts rather than prejudice and opinion.

Like many religious types you decide what it is you believe, then hope to shuffle the facts to support your belief.

If you think that modern American heterosexual marriage also includes the legally sanctioned right to have sex with slaves, bring third parties into the marriage for the purposes of reproducing male heirs, and forbids marrying non-Americans, then say so.

Otherwise you're anachronistically imposing a culture specific definition of marriage on Ancient Greek society that suits your purpose and prejudices.

As for the definition of marriage not changing but rather the social status of the people being allowed to marry changing- well it seems to me you can't have it both ways, try as you might.

Your argument was that the only legally recognised and binding marriages were between heterosexuals.

Sorry, but are you suggesting that African Americans weren't heterosexual?

And that an African man or woman who wished to marry a person of a different 'race' and gender was prevented from doing so because they weren't heterosexual?

Legal and religious marriage includes, across the world, in other cultures and countries, one man with several wives, one woman with several husbands (some of them brothers),concubines and so on, a city and the Adriatic Sea:

"The Pope was very grateful to the Venetians and swamped the city with gifts, also donating to Doge Ziani a blessed ring pronouncing the words: "Accept this as a pledge of the sovereignty that you and your successors will have perpetually over the Sea" and, according to the historian Sanudo, there was also specific reference to a wedding "... that he marry the sea just as a man marries a woman, to become its master". Thus the initial visit to the sea and its blessing was transformed into an act of investiture and possession: by now, Venice’s domination over the Adriatic was acknowledged by the two major European powers of the time."

http://www.sevenonline.it/sensa/english/storiagb.htm

nuns and their god, et cetera.

Your notion that marriage is not is not to be tampered with lightly seems to have escaped the legislators of the United States in the past, when for instance, they decided that polygamous and marriages were not legal.

Or when they decided that, heterosexual or not, if your skin wasn't the right colour you couldn't be LEGALLY married to someone.

If you're a Christian, perhaps you can tell me what the Bible had to say on the varieties of legally sanctioned marriages. I can think of off-hand, about seven or eight different kinds of marriage, as well as restrictions on who was allowed to be married to whom, and the legal status of any offspring of the marriages.

'According to Biblical law, the brother of a deceased childless man is required to marry his brother's widow. The levirate marriage is referred to in Hebrew, as yibbum.'

http://www.jhom.com/lifecycle/marriage/halitza.htm

I'm also aware that the Qu'ran is used by some Muslims to sanction marriage between a man and up to four different women, although some Muslims view the information as being more metaphorical in nature, because no one could treat four women exactly the same.

http://www.iica.org/articles/islamicm.htm

I think you also may be a little behind in your legal knowledge relating to the changed social status of gay men and lesbians. As far as I can recall, it is no longer legal in America to punish homosexuality by burning at the stake, burying beneath rocks or a wall, assigning them to the stocks or pillory, or branding.

As to whether or not Sparta's population grew or faded- what on earth does that have to do with anything?
Perhaps we should interpret it as the failure of a variety of 'heterosexual' marriage to do its job properly?

Or just perhaps, those of us who know the history of Sparta are aware that there are a variety of reasons for the decline in the population of Sparta and the fall in numbers of its Spartan army, not all of which are related to the way Sparta understood or defined the concept of marriage.

I also suggest you refrain from using phrases such as adult catamite- and I'll refrain from being insulting about people who use inaccurate terminology.

[Whaleboy]

1. Even if I had a problem with public displays of homosexual relationships, I have not said that they should be banned, and the participants tossed into jail.

Surely I was addressing Park Avenue

2. It's a form of expression, and I'm rather libertarian on expression, so long as it doesn't violate the laws on indecent exposure, which apply across the board.

Indeed, and there are reasons why homosexuals and heterosexuals shouldn't engage in sexual acts upon the streets, but I do not believe that covers such things as holding hands, kissing or touching etc. If one was to say that sordid man love wasn't acceptable in public, that wouldn't be to say that it isn't acceptable full stop, and that all expressions of said love are unacceptable.

But marriage is necessarily a public issue, as it requires state intervention, so you're being hypocritical and your argument does not follow at all.

On the contrary. Marriage isn't permission or ratification of a relationship by the state, it is merely recognition, which is the right of an individual in a heterosexual relationship and not a political right, thus the same logic applies in homosexual relationships, unlike yours.

Fudge

His logic is sound, there is no rational cause to discriminate against gay marriage using the infrastructure that does so for heterosexual couples. The only reason we're seeing here is homophobia and some ad-hoc consequential, sociological argument used to justify it, that appears tired, worn and refuted anyway!

Your suggestion doesn't make sense. It's either private or public, what is it?

Private with public recognition, ergo marriage.

Marriage is for a man and a woman. No-one is discriminated against. You don't need to love to marry, unfortunately it isn't a prerequisite.

Forgive me but I'm going to take the views of those who understand the history of marriage, and more importantly, those that wish to engage in it more seriously than the views of one whose anti-gay views provide a damning vested interest that affects his position, thus not ad hominem, dogmatically claiming that it is between a man and a woman, but provides no evidence to prove that it can ONLY be so.

Why can it also be for a gay and a gay? There's no reason for it except tax evasion.

It is not for you to specify that there cannot be a reason, rather, it is for the participants to specify the individual reasons and the state to accept that those reasons can exist, can be as disperate and valid as those for heterosexual marriage.

[Solly]

The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

[DeathByTheSword]

The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

the fact is that you are wrong...let people be... and the world would be a much better place

[Solly]

Note "public", I don't mind them hiding themselves away and perverting themselves, that is their choice, but in public NO WAY. And I am in the majority.

[DeathByTheSword]

so a guy and a girl is ok? and probably 2 girls is ok too?

but 2 guys isnt?

and if the majority says 1+1=3 do you listen?

[Solly]

1+1 is not a matter of public decency and order.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Note "public", I don't mind them hiding themselves away and perverting themselves, that is their choice, but in public NO WAY. And I am in the majority.

[DeathByTheSword]

you didnt answer my other question....what is the difference between a guy and a girl and 2 guys?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.

Damn fairies!

[Provost Harrison]

Stew, you are so full of sh*t...why does it cause you such a problem? Does it make you uncomfortable? And why?

[Solly]

It's not right. People don't want their children seeing that sort of behaviour either.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
.. and the world would be a much better place

'better' is extremely subjective. I am sure there are plenty of things which you would object to people doing in public. Why do you and Monk label PA as a facist for having a different opinion from you?

[Provost Harrison]

Perhaps if they grow up seeing it, it won't be treated as the taboo subject it is and it will make being honest about sexuality a damn sight easier.