 |
| |
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
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
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
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 
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
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! 
quote:
Your suggestion doesn't make sense. It's either private or public, what is it?
|
Private with public recognition, ergo marriage.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Monk
|
|
I don't think we're in Brønshøj anymore
Jan 1970
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
'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? |
Well, I don't think I've called PA a fascist yet, although we'll probably get there eventually. Actually, my main problem with PA doesn't have anything to do with his political opinions, it's mostly due to the fact he's deliberately posting his hateful remarks not to discuss but instead with the intent of hurting and/or insulting people. Just why this feels so great I fail to understand fully, but it's obvious by now he's getting some kind of twisted kick out of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
"The people" have no say in amending the Constitution. The process is set up that way.
But what exactly is being dictated? One state allows gay marriage, per it's prerogative as a sovereign state. 38 states explicitly forbid gay marriage, and 11 states don't allow it, but don't expressly forbid it either. So how is "the minority" doing anything to "the majority?"
Given that there has only been one act of "superlegislation" in the 217 year history of the Constitution, why should there now be another? Especially when it looks absolutely absurd to read the 21st amendment's repeal of the 18th amendment. |
The ERA was an act of superlegislation, even though it failed ratification. The people do have a say, in the form of accountable state legislatures in the ratification process, and that is why the ERA failed. |
How would the ERA qualify as superlegislation? "Equality of rights under law shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of sex" isn't particularly inconsistent with other rights statements in the Constitution, and sure as hell is in a whole different category from deciding whether people can consume alcoholic beverages.
quote:
Each state is required to hold legal contracts and marriages made in any other state as enforcible in its own jurisdiction. That is how the minority dictates to the majority in this case. |
The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to abide by and enforce judgments of other states, but that's a pretty limited "imposition" on the majority. Gee, two fudgepackers are technically "married." Most states don't allow 14 year olds to marry, even with parental consent, but three do, and the others must recognize those marriages. Is that an "imposition?" Especially when two people who aren't married can accomplish the same things with respect to property ownership through contracts and trusts and wills, which states are obligated to abide by and enforce in any event, regardless of marriage or sexual status of the individuals. Should the state even have a right to interfere in such private property arrangements if there is no compelling state interest?
quote:
One state can't say to another, "You can't do that" except by Federal intervention. Furthermore, any simple Federal legislation will be challenged in the skewed arena of an activist judiciary. Many would prefer the route of "superlegislation" where there is at least public debate and accountability involved. |
States are sovereign, and the "activist judiciary" label is a little bit of a tough sell, since the substantial majority of the Federal judiciary are Republican appointees.
Who is entitled to what state or private benefits is still a legislative matter, not one of executive or judicial judgment. Gay married partners entitlement to future benefits is uncertain if they move to a state where their marriage is not legally sanctioned, and is only merely recognized under the Full Faith and Credit clause. The only effect of the Full Faith and Credit clause is that prior acts (the marriage itself, any wills or codicils, property ownership, etc.), under any other state's authority must be recognized as valid. So how is this an imposition in any substantial way? Gee, two more people in a divorce court engaged in a property dispute?
From a taxation standpoint, married couples pay more in most income scenarios, and never pay less than two "single" people in identical income and residency situations, so that's not an imposition.
The fact that some people "don't like it" doesn't rise to imposition. However, the Yankee government attempting to usurp yet another matter of state's rights is. Marriage is not a Federal issue, and it sure as hell shouldn't be in the Constitution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Japher
"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."
That's don't make it right PH.
And, PA's response is correct IMO
For many sexuality is a private issue, and with the gay pride day coming up (now just called Pride Day), it makes many of realize why it should be kept private. Exposing someone to something, anything, will make them more comfortable with the subject. However, is that what needs or should happen?
|
So seeing "Dykes on Bikes" or a bunch of queens gets you all hot and tingly? Seeing more of it is going to turn you? 
quote:
War happens, should we expose ppl to it? Will they except it more? Do they warm up to it? |
Remember "Hell no, we won't go?" If anything, public exposure to war reduces acceptance to such a degree that we won't see another meatgrinder war like the War of Yankee Agression, the two World Wars, Korea or Viet Nam. Politicians have a real tough time selling the idea of tens of thousands of KIA's in a foreign war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
The fact is, Whaleboy, any sex or touching/kissing in public between man and man is a perversion.
|
Fact?  
Considering that homosexuality is relatively commonplace among some higher mammals like chimps and possibly even dolphins, I'm inclined to disagree. One could use the perversion argument against mankind using tools or using our intellects for anything other than hunting zebras and scaring away lions. No dice.
quote:
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.
|
I don't know where you're from but down here, you certainly wouldn't be in the majority, not that that is in anyway relevant to the ethical question pertaining to this situation.
quote:
1+1 is not a matter of public decency and order.
|
When it comes to a proposition that law should be used to limit people's freedoms because of the sensibilities of a decreasing number of bigoted, narrow minded fools, one of whom consider an activity he disagrees with a "perversion", I'm inclined to think instead that the law should respect individual freedoms where that does not harm another. If you consider the sight of two people of same gender benignly expressing their love somehow harmful, like an assault to observers who can simply turn their eyes in another direction, like turning off the radio when a song you dislike comes on, then you should find a good counsellor.
quote:
It's not right. People don't want their children seeing that sort of behaviour either.
|
Bull. An increasing number of parents are becoming as accepting of homosexuality in their children as they would be of their exploring their heterosexuality as they overcome their own prejudices and fears.
quote:
More likely that they'd become interested in perversions themselves?
|
Would I rather someone recognise their homosexuality/bisexuality than be unhappily chained to heterosexuality when that does not become them, then I would rather they are open about it. If you mean to create an atmosphere where homosexuals are fearful about accepting that side to themselves, then all you are doing is making a lot of people very miserable so you aren't challenged by your fear of something going in through the out door  .
quote:
Just why this feels so great I fail to understand fully, but it's obvious by now he's getting some kind of twisted kick out of it.
|
Some people find being entrenched in dogma comforting. When these types of people achieve power, innocent people invariably suffer.
quote:
This isn't hateful, it's more like a sort of pity I think.
|
You pity me because I am bisexual? . Really no need, I'm rather happy about myself.
quote:
Then people will be more comfortable around war. Good solution
|
Heil zu unserem Führer, das neue Fez
Most people dislike the idea of other people suffering for the sake of some prejudiced politic, so try again .
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-06-2004 22:45
Attachment: 
. and pissing in the street is a direct menace to the public.
|
|
-02_20.gif){kind=link}