Conservatives and Gay Marriage

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

I love how one of them posted about how the bible says homosexuality is bad, and even gave the bit that says that (Leviticus 18 22), and then a few posts later said that the old testament doesn't matter despite Leviticus being in the old testament.

Edit: Jesus Christ. I just saw that one of them described Romney as a "moderate progressive."

Dags90:

ZamielTheHunter:
What kind of people wish that the world ends solely because they are not satisfied with current politics?

As for conservatives in NJ, Morris County is full of them, unfortunately, but I've never heard people I've known spewing such hatred.

The kind of people who are absolutely sure of their place in Heaven. Fuck these other assholes, as long as I get my in with Jesus!

I've heard one person from NJ say stuff of this caliber. He was from Sussex County though, so I'm not sure that counts, he might as well be from out of state. Specifically he said he thought that AIDS was started by God to punish gay people, not even joking.

That idea that AIDS was created by God to punish homosexuals isn't as rare as one might hope. The priest in my local church has brought that up like 4 times in the last year, and we're in the heavily liberal Chicago area of Illinois. Of course, if they had done their research they would understand that AIDS is actually transmitted far more easily by vaginal intercourse, ie STRAIGHT sex, but who needs common sense and fact checking when you've got faith on your side?

tstorm823:

Why fight to expand the "marriage club" instead of just obliterating the construct that causes the fuss in the first place when it serves no real purpose.

This. Thank you.

Gorfias:

Tyler Perry:

I, for one, don't particularly care if gay marriage is "contemptuous of their values." If their values are that same-sex relationships are somehow inferior, then all their values deserve is contempt.

Sad, and bullying. You aren't the only one to have values and a right to them. When you turn to those in power to impose your values rather than argue for fairness, you have embraced the ethics of a tyrant, and liberty suffers.

We should all be fighting for a better way, and a more perfect justice.

Group A is telling Group B they can't do something they want to do because Group A doesn't agree with it. Group B's behavior does not, in any legal way, affect Group A. Group A's sentiments are based on subjective feelings.

Who seems more like a "tyrant" in this situation? Group B, who just wants to do what they want to do and leave Group A the hell alone, or Group A because they want to stop Group B for no reason other than they personally dislike Group B and what they do?

ZamielTheHunter:
Hey all, it's been a while since I've posted in this section of the forums, but something in the off-topic has led me back here. While browsing a thread concerning gay marriage, a poster called Therumancer, or something like that, asked those participating to go to a conservative forum and see what valid points they had in this debate. I was curious and a bit annoyed at myself for not having visited one of these forums before since the conservatives here are far less extreme than those to be found on boards dedicated to their discussion.

So I visited conservativesforum and found a topic on gay marriage that looked promising. It was this thread here http://www.conservativesforum.com/cgi-bin/conservatives-forum/YaBB.pl?num=1337138756/0 and concerned a conservative voter trying to decide on whether to vote for gay marriage in my home state, NJ. Well despite the promising start it swiftly turned vile. Posters such as FreedomBill saying that even discussing tolerance of "faggotry" was immoral. So I come back to these boards for a hopefully more reasonable discussion. What are valid points in opposition of Gay Marriage? I've been digging through the hatred spewed out in that forum and trying to find shreds of logical reasoning and failing. The only even marginally valid point was the effect on an adopted child, but even that was taken to the extreme by being listed as worse than a single parent or any other relative.

So thoughts? Is there any logical and not hateful reason to oppose gay marriage?

CAPTCHA: foul play

Most foul indeed.

i read through it and Im pretty sure Freedome Bill is trolling. like 99% positive. I mean the hate as almost at a comical level

renegade7:
snip.

hold on one second. I was like 100% positive that AIDS was made my the CIA to kill black people all this talk of god and punishing homo sexual s is really puttin the hurt on my brian.

tstorm823:
Why fight to expand the "marriage club" instead of just obliterating the construct that causes the fuss in the first place when it serves no real purpose.

In a legal or religious sense? I suppose I could see a reason in separating what legally constitutes a couple from the term marriage. However, there still needs to be some way to classify people in a relationship as "joined," otherwise hospital visitation (the point there being giving priority to people who are close to you when you cannot speak for yourself who you want to be near), control over a significant other's dead body, inheritance, custody, and joint loans and bank accounts are going to be very confusing. Familial bonds are important in people's lives, and there needs to be some way for people to be legally documented as in a long-term, committed relationship.

As for why the religious institution of marriage isn't abolished, well first I would say in order to get rid of that you'd have to get rid of religion, and well...good luck. That might be some people's ideal world but that's just not going to happen, and it's quite a naive thing to hope for. And a lot of people, even gay people, still want that ceremony. The walking down the isle, the vows, the rings, the kiss. It may not be important to you, but that experience is important to a lot of people. They fight to expand the marriage club because that is all they want--to be in it. They don't want to destroy it and ruin everybody else's fun. They just want to have the same fun themselves.

Gorfias:

Tyler Perry:

I, for one, don't particularly care if gay marriage is "contemptuous of their values." If their values are that same-sex relationships are somehow inferior, then all their values deserve is contempt.

Sad, and bullying. You aren't the only one to have values and a right to them. When you turn to those in power to impose your values rather than argue for fairness, you have embraced the ethics of a tyrant, and liberty suffers.

We should all be fighting for a better way, and a more perfect justice.

"When I went to the principal because the kid was beating me up, I became a bully because when he got in trouble, I interfered with his civil rights!"

Is that about right?

There is never, and has never, and never will be, a reason that gay marriage is "wrong". EVER.

TheBear17:

renegade7:
snip.

hold on one second. I was like 100% positive that AIDS was made my the CIA to kill black people all this talk of god and punishing homo sexual s is really puttin the hurt on my brian.

I know right? Just like syphillis was invented by the government to scare women into being subservient to their husbands.

TheBear17:

renegade7:
snip.

hold on one second. I was like 100% positive that AIDS was made my the CIA to kill black people all this talk of god and punishing homo sexual s is really puttin the hurt on my brian.

I heard a conspiracy theory that AIDS was created by the government as a massive Cold War biological weapon, and was intentionally exposed to the homosexual population to test its effectiveness. The reason we don't have a cure for it is A) it's too perfect and B) Someone might found it's man made.

I don't buy it, but some people do. Same people with tin hats.

TheBear17:
i read through it and Im pretty sure Freedome Bill is trolling. like 99% positive. I mean the hate as almost at a comical level

But you can't be sure.

Stuff like this is why I've largely given up writing insane pseudo-ultra-rightwing screeds unless I mark them in pink - no matter what sort of ridiculous hatefilled strawman screed I write, I _guarantee_ there's someone on the Internet writing the exact same thing seriously.

renegade7:
Of course, if they had done their research they would understand that AIDS is actually transmitted far more easily by vaginal intercourse, ie STRAIGHT sex, but who needs common sense and fact checking when you've got faith on your side?

Hm. Now, I may be wrong on this, but I think anal sex (without proper lubrication in particular) does have a higher chance of transmission because of the higher risk of blood contact. It overall affects heterosexuals much more (in terms of actual worldwide numbers) because, frankly, there are a lot more heterosexuals and thus there are a lot more risk encounters. But penetrative anal sex (including heterosexual one, mind) does bear a higher risk than vaginal sex as far as I'm aware.

Do you have a source or explanation for vaginal sex having a higher risk of transmisison? Or do you base that statement on the fact that more heterosexuals than homosexuals are affected overall?

DrVornoff:

I never actually denied that it happened. I'm just looking at the fact that racism was so normalized at the time that I find it hard to believe that you expected anything different.

Besides, I judge intent and consequences separately. The net gain was still a positive so it's a victory I'm willing to take.

Well, I don't want to give credit when people had purer goals and dropped them, but I'll allow you the time relativism since that is a reasonable consideration.

But the thing is, I'm not saying the women's suffrage movement was negative because of that action. I'm saying it was not a fight for equality, just a fight for a singular goal. And maybe for that time, you might still hold that equality wasn't a concept people cared about, but if you judge by that standard the analogy stops carrying over. There is no excuse to be made in the present day to fight for a specific groups benefit on the basis of equal rights without actually fighting for general equality in the matter.

renegade7:

tstorm823:

Why fight to expand the "marriage club" instead of just obliterating the construct that causes the fuss in the first place when it serves no real purpose.

This. Thank you.

Lilani:

tstorm823:
Why fight to expand the "marriage club" instead of just obliterating the construct that causes the fuss in the first place when it serves no real purpose.

In a legal or religious sense? I suppose I could see a reason in separating what legally constitutes a couple from the term marriage. However, there still needs to be some way to classify people in a relationship as "joined," otherwise hospital visitation (the point there being giving priority to people who are close to you when you cannot speak for yourself who you want to be near), control over a significant other's dead body, inheritance, custody, and joint loans and bank accounts are going to be very confusing. Familial bonds are important in people's lives, and there needs to be some way for people to be legally documented as in a long-term, committed relationship.

As for why the religious institution of marriage isn't abolished, well first I would say in order to get rid of that you'd have to get rid of religion, and well...good luck. That might be some people's ideal world but that's just not going to happen, and it's quite a naive thing to hope for. And a lot of people, even gay people, still want that ceremony. The walking down the isle, the vows, the rings, the kiss. It may not be important to you, but that experience is important to a lot of people. They fight to expand the marriage club because that is all they want--to be in it. They don't want to destroy it and ruin everybody else's fun. They just want to have the same fun themselves.

To clarify, I want neither to destroy the concept of joint rights nor personal marriage. I just want to destroy the unnecessary connection between the two.

Skeleon:

renegade7:
Of course, if they had done their research they would understand that AIDS is actually transmitted far more easily by vaginal intercourse, ie STRAIGHT sex, but who needs common sense and fact checking when you've got faith on your side?

Hm. Now, I may be wrong on this, but I think anal sex (without proper lubrication in particular) does have a higher chance of transmission because of the higher risk of blood contact. It overall affects heterosexuals much more (in terms of actual worldwide numbers) because, frankly, there are a lot more heterosexuals and thus there are a lot more risk encounters. But penetrative anal sex (including heterosexual one, mind) does bear a higher risk than vaginal sex as far as I'm aware.

Do you have a source or explanation for vaginal sex having a higher risk of transmisison? Or do you base that statement on the fact that more heterosexuals than homosexuals are affected overall?

I don't know for certain, I just remember we talked about that back in intro to health in school last year, and I think the explanation was that in vaginal sex there is more fluid exchange, and that the virus can get into the vaginal wall during menstruation, and because the virus can get through the mucus membranes a bit more easily...but then again your explanation makes sense too, because in anal sex there is a greater risk of a friction burn causing blood contact.

Gorfias:
Your argument fails miserably because, historically, we as a society, have not accepted it. We do not empower government to decide what heterosexual couplings are capable of producing children or not.

Any more questions?

Non sequitur. Let's try again.

If the primary goal of marriage is to have children, why should we validate marriages between people who cannot reproduce, including straight pairs where one or both of the parties is missing a crucial reproductive organ? Why should we not validate marriages between two women, each of which could easily go to a sperm bank and get impregnated whenever they feel like it?

Answer. The. Question.

Stagnant:

Non sequitur. Let's try again.

Actually, it is a direct answer to your question.

If the primary goal of marriage is to have children, why should we validate marriages between people who cannot reproduce, including straight pairs where one or both of the parties is missing a crucial reproductive organ?

Because, as I've already written, laws are about broad lines. Example: I honestly think I know people who deserve to be robbed. We should come up with laws that find the exception to the rule that robbing people is illegal and legalize it. Seriously. But, we don't do that. We have broad laws. We do not and have never drawn a fine line finding heterosexuals whose marriages will not produce children. A good example of why this should be: I/we do not license government to make this distinction.

Why should we not validate marriages between two women, each of which could easily go to a sperm bank and get impregnated whenever they feel like it?

Because it is the activity itself that marriage is licensing: heterosexual sex, which is, as a broad matter, a potentially pro-genative. A woman that goes to a sperm bank to get pregnant is someone engaged in activity that can be planned for, while the heterosexual act is done, typically, for the act itself, but can, as a broad matter, produce unexpected kids.

Lilani:

Group A is telling Group B they can't do something they want to do because Group A doesn't agree with it. Group B's behavior does not, in any legal way, affect Group A. Group A's sentiments are based on subjective feelings.

Who seems more like a "tyrant" in this situation? Group B, who just wants to do what they want to do and leave Group A the hell alone, or Group A because they want to stop Group B for no reason other than they personally dislike Group B and what they do?

Group A finds value in a social institution. Group B wants to expand the exceptions to the rule that make for the primary purpose of that institution. We, as a society, subsidize that institution. Those who do not receive a subsidy pay for it. The more people that receive a subsidy, the less relative value of the subsidy.

Same sex marriage will have a social impact on this society. I think, ultimately, for the better. My beef is how we get there. Through persuasion, or judicial fiat.

Gorfias:
Because, as I've already written, laws are about broad lines. Example: I honestly think I know people who deserve to be robbed. We should come up with laws that find the exception to the rule that robbing people is illegal and legalize it. Seriously. But, we don't do that. We have broad laws. We do not and have never drawn a fine line finding heterosexuals whose marriages will not produce children. A good example of why this should be: I/we do not license government to make this distinction.

This would a be a reason why the law is the way it is. It's still not answering my question as to why it should be that way. If the primary goal of marriage is reproduction, then the law is insufficient and fails. It would be like making a law with the intent of making all theft illegal, and then having it state that robbing people is illegal, unless it's done within the confines of your own home - clearly, this law is insufficient, as you can invite guests into your house for whatever reason, and then rob them blind, and the law has no problem with it. If the primary goal of marriage is procreation, then ignoring heterosexuals whose marriages will not and cannot produce children while singling out homosexuals whose marriages cannot produce children (or hell, even could produce children) creates an absolutely disgusting double standard, and it means that the current law is insufficient and unfair, and therefore needs to be fixed. Do you agree?

Because it is the activity itself that marriage is licensing: heterosexual sex, which is, as a broad matter, a potentially pro-genative.

WRONG. Heterosexual sex between two fertile people is potentially pro-genative. If the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, then adding "fertile" as a necessary quality is not an afterthought, but rather a vital point!

That said, I completely reject this view of things! I reject that marriage is about procreation now, or that it was about procreation before now.

A woman that goes to a sperm bank to get pregnant is someone engaged in activity that can be planned for, while the heterosexual act is done, typically, for the act itself, but can, as a broad matter, produce unexpected kids.

So what? They're still having kids, and as such are still pro-genetive. This is a gigantic non-sequitur that doesn't help your argument one bit. Unless you want to argue that marriage is there to help people in the case of unexpected and/or unwanted childbirth, which would add another two crucial modifiers to the requirements to get married - straight, fertile, sexually active, and probably stupid. Hmm, these really seem to be adding up.

Stagnant:

This would a be a reason why the law is the way it is. It's still not answering my question as to why it should be that way.

It should not stay that way! Now, how do we change it? By judicial fiat or through representative government?

And how far do we go?

I have two family members in a committed relationship. They care for each other, share funds and investments. They don't have sex with each other at all. That is none of the government's business. Do you think they should be allowed to marry? I do.

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

This would a be a reason why the law is the way it is. It's still not answering my question as to why it should be that way.

It should not stay that way! Now, how do we change it? By judicial fiat or through representative government?

And how far do we go?

I have two family members in a committed relationship. They care for each other, share funds and investments. They don't have sex with each other at all. That is none of the government's business. Do you think they should be allowed to marry? I do.

When representative government flies in the face of what is truly RIGHT, then yes, through judicial fiat. Sometimes, the judicial branch serves a purpose other than reinforcing the views of the lowest common denominator.

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

This would a be a reason why the law is the way it is. It's still not answering my question as to why it should be that way.

It should not stay that way! Now, how do we change it? By judicial fiat or through representative government?

And how far do we go?

I have two family members in a committed relationship. They care for each other, share funds and investments. They don't have sex with each other at all. That is none of the government's business. Do you think they should be allowed to marry? I do.

And now we've gone around in a circle and missed the point entirely. The point being that the position of "marriage is for procreation" is ludicrous on several levels.

Tyler Perry:

When representative government flies in the face of what is truly RIGHT, then yes, through judicial fiat. Sometimes, the judicial branch serves a purpose other than reinforcing the views of the lowest common denominator.

Just because I think marriage should not stay as it is doesn't mean I am "Olympian Correct". If you are looking for some nice judiciary to decide what is right and wrong and impose its will upon the people, you do violence to the concept of self government. What happens when you think they've decided something in a manner that is absolutely wrong? How hard is it to reverse their bad decision?

Doc Vornoff and I were discussing this in a similar thread. Doc stated that some people are going to drive toward their goal regardless because they want to win, even over what they might know is correct.

Among my concerns is backlash. I cited a recent example where a state legislature, in a state that was moving toward same sex marriage legislatively, passed a freakin Amendment, stating fear of judicial fiat made them do so (North Carolina, I think).

I'm sure Doc is correct about some people, but, I think not the vast majority of people who can, through reason, govern themselves.

Stagnant:
the position of "marriage is for procreation" is ludicrous on several levels.

I'm sorry, but your statement is ludicrous on several levels if you are stating that procreation has never been a primary function of marriage. On a related note, marriage as a control of heterosexual sex has also been a big part of marriage.

To many opposing same sex marriage, it still is and they say so openly.

You, me and most of this thread appear to support changing this.

I find it ironic that the extent of the political divide means that here in the UK it could be very possible that our conservative-liberal democrat coalition (that is really mainly conservative) could be instituting gay marriage.

Where did it all go wrong for you America? We're the ones with a state religion!

Gorfias:
Group A finds value in a social institution. Group B wants to expand the exceptions to the rule that make for the primary purpose of that institution. We, as a society, subsidize that institution. Those who do not receive a subsidy pay for it. The more people that receive a subsidy, the less relative value of the subsidy.

Same sex marriage will have a social impact on this society. I think, ultimately, for the better. My beef is how we get there. Through persuasion, or judicial fiat.

Social issues are not issues of the government. How the public feels about a problem shouldn't have an impact when an objective, legal reason for something cannot be given. I would prefer judicial fiat than waiting for these people--who are already buckling down with their state laws and constitutional amendments--to magically "change their minds." We didn't wait for them to change their minds when it came to segregation or poll taxes. Why the hell should we wait for them to be less prejudiced against gay people? Why should this continue to go on when there is no logical or legal reason for it?

In short: I don't care how those people feel. If they cannot provide an objective reason to ban gay marriage, then it should be legal. End of discussion. This shouldn't be allowed to go on for one or two more generations as we wait for people to change their minds. It's not going to happen any faster. Hell, if we tell them they're right at this point it's only going to take longer. You seem to think the people who are against gay marriage have some sort of privilege to have things go their way based on their feelings. Nobody has some legal right to have laws passed solely according to their personal beliefs. That isn't a legal system, that is a theocracy.

Lilani:

If they cannot provide an objective reason to ban gay marriage, then it should be legal.

Can you provide an objective reason to create legal gay marriage? It's not really a goal with a lot of objective reasons for either side.

tstorm823:

Lilani:

If they cannot provide an objective reason to ban gay marriage, then it should be legal.

Can you provide an objective reason to create legal gay marriage? It's not really a goal with a lot of objective reasons for either side.

Gay relationships have never been proven to be any different from straight relationships. Gay people have never been proven to be incapable of such love, they have never been proven to be incapable of handling the legal issues that come with marriage (visitation, loans, property, inheritance, custody, etc), and there are no repercussions that come from their type of relationship (no malformed children like incestuous relationships, no unanswered question of consent or lack of both parties being capable of entering a contract like in zoophilic relationships and relationships with the mentally challenged, etc). My objective proof is a lack of legal difference between gay and straight couples. The only difference is the gender of one party. Otherwise, they are the same.

Dags90:

Definition of marriage/tradition.
Standard rebuttals: Divorce isn't a tradition, women as property was.

Divorce IS a tradition. It goes back thousands of years.

I agree with the rest of your list though.

TheDarkEricDraven:

I am more astonished that people such as yourself are constantly surprised and shocked that conservatives are, gasp, batshit insane.

Bigotry is bad Eric. You shouldn't stereotype an entire side of the political spectrum that way.

Lilani:

Gay relationships have never been proven to be any different from straight relationships. Gay people have never been proven to be incapable of such love, they have never been proven to be incapable of handling the legal issues that come with marriage (visitation, loans, property, inheritance, custody, etc), and there are no repercussions that come from their type of relationship (no malformed children like incestuous relationships, no unanswered question of consent or lack of both parties being capable of entering a contract like in zoophilic relationships and relationships with the mentally challenged, etc). My objective proof is a lack of legal difference between gay and straight couples. The only difference is the gender of one party. Otherwise, they are the same.

So, other than the difference, it's exactly the same... that's objective. Is it really a reason?

tstorm823:
But the thing is, I'm not saying the women's suffrage movement was negative because of that action. I'm saying it was not a fight for equality, just a fight for a singular goal. And maybe for that time, you might still hold that equality wasn't a concept people cared about, but if you judge by that standard the analogy stops carrying over. There is no excuse to be made in the present day to fight for a specific groups benefit on the basis of equal rights without actually fighting for general equality in the matter.

Equality hasn't always meant the same thing that it does today. Again, your criticisms come from a perspective of already knowing how the story ends.

Also, mind that people are creatures of habit. Society must change to continue existing, but if you try to change too much at once, there's going to revolt. If all at the same time, we gave women the right to vote, minorities complete civil liberties, and gay marriage, the backlash would be far worse than any of these individual changes suffered in their own time. While it sounds pretty unfair, it's ultimately better if such changes are made gradually as part of separate movements.

Beyond that, it's also a logical fallacy to criticize people for fighting for a cause but not all of them.

tstorm823:
So, other than the difference, it's exactly the same... that's objective. Is it really a reason?

It's more objective and legal than what the anti-gay people have for rebuttal. Here's how I see the argument:

"We want the same rights extended to us, as we are not legally different."

"We do not want those rights extended to them, because we don't like them very much."

Who has the better argument? Or to put that another way, which is more likely to stand up in court?

I think usually people are expected to provide a lot more evidence when abridging other's civil liberties, as it negatively impacts them. Awarding civil liberties does not negatively affect anybody in a legal sense (and if it does, please tell me what the objective legal concerns regarding letting gay people marry are).

I'm reading the linked thread, and I think my brain is actually starting to force its way out of my nostrils. That so many people can have such painfully, woefully ignorant opinions, and then revel in their ignorance...

Folks, lets call it what it is... homosexuality ...gay has nothing to do with it!!!

I... but... wha??!??

It's my contention the idea of allowing same-sex marriages is nothing more than a continuation of the declining ethical posture of a civilized society.

Yeah, like those bloody Classical Greeks. Going round with their gay sex, and their gay statues, and their gay pots and vases. It's not like they were the foundation of Western Civilisation or anything, right?

As a Christian, I do not now nor ever will recognize a "union" between two people of the same sex as a marraige. Marraige, I believe, is an institution that was created by God, and therefore, He gets to make the rules. He officiated the first marraige between Adam and Eve and I don't believe there's any room for deviation.

Because Adam and Eve were totally real...

he difficult thing is to say its wrong and uphold the responsibility you have for the future of this country.

Nobody is saying that people can't be gay, nobody is going to round these people up like the muslims and hang them. Nobody is telling these people that they can't be together.

But to promote homosexuality as if it is normal is absolutely WRONG and DAMAGING for a society and nation.

Surely saying homosexuality is 'wrong' and 'damaging' for society is pretty much saying people can't and shouldn't do it?

Seriously, this level of ignorance goes way beyond any kind of comedy. It's just pathetic and incredibly tragic. The incredibly sad thing is the number of people claiming that they should be allowed to persecute gay people because Jesus/God says its alright, when Jesus actually said "Let's all love each other and not judge. Peace!" I wonder how many right-wing conservatives are actually aware that Jesus was pretty much the archetypical liberal, long-haired, peace loving Marxist hippy of his day, the sort of person they spend all their time moaning about?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

It's my contention the idea of allowing same-sex marriages is nothing more than a continuation of the declining ethical posture of a civilized society.

Yeah, like those bloody Classical Greeks. Going round with their gay sex, and their gay statues, and their gay pots and vases. It's not like they were the foundation of Western Civilisation or anything, right?

I don't believe they had any kind of marriage between men, or, for that matter, the kind of homosexuality you're thinking of. A man would go out for the day, do his boy-lover a few times, but still come home to a woman called his wife.

Cakes:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

It's my contention the idea of allowing same-sex marriages is nothing more than a continuation of the declining ethical posture of a civilized society.

Yeah, like those bloody Classical Greeks. Going round with their gay sex, and their gay statues, and their gay pots and vases. It's not like they were the foundation of Western Civilisation or anything, right?

I don't believe they had any kind of marriage between men, or, for that matter, the kind of homosexuality you're thinking of. A man would go out for the day, do his boy-lover a few times, but still come home to a woman called his wife.

So we're supposed to take you at your word, then?

Gorfias:

Stagnant:

This would a be a reason why the law is the way it is. It's still not answering my question as to why it should be that way.

It should not stay that way! Now, how do we change it? By judicial fiat or through representative government?

Dude, if we'd waited for 'representative government' to end segregation, we'd still have 'whites only' drinking fountains in Alabama. The Bigots had a hard enough lock on local political power that we NEEDED the Federal Government to FORCE them to allow the concept of racial equality, however half-assed it ended up being.

Kendarik:

TheDarkEricDraven:

I am more astonished that people such as yourself are constantly surprised and shocked that conservatives are, gasp, batshit insane.

Bigotry is bad Eric. You shouldn't stereotype an entire side of the political spectrum that way.

We're not stereotyping them that way. THEY'VE stereotyped THEMSELVES that way.

Sane Conservatives: GET OUT. Your party neither wants you nor listens to you.

Lilani:

Cakes:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Yeah, like those bloody Classical Greeks. Going round with their gay sex, and their gay statues, and their gay pots and vases. It's not like they were the foundation of Western Civilisation or anything, right?

I don't believe they had any kind of marriage between men, or, for that matter, the kind of homosexuality you're thinking of. A man would go out for the day, do his boy-lover a few times, but still come home to a woman called his wife.

So we're supposed to take you at your word, then?

Okay, here's what I found after a quick search:

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/175/examining-greek-pederastic-relationships

The ideal pederastic relationship in ancient Greece involved an erastes (an older male, usually in his mid- to late-20s) and an eromenos (a younger male who has passed puberty, usually no older than 18) (Dover, I.4.: 16).

...

The ideal erastes was meant to be more of a teacher than a lover. The eromenos would receive this training in exchange for the sexual favors he provided to his erastes. Also important to the ideal pederastic relationship was the fact that the eromenos supposedly did not enjoy the sexual actions that he performed with his erastes, adding to the idea of the older male acting as a teacher: "Boy, my passion's master, listen. I'll tell no tale/That's unpersuasive or unpleasant to your heart./Just try to grasp my words with your mind. There is no need/For you to do what's not to your liking" (Theognis, 1235-38: 40).

Needless to say, this is hardly comparable to our modern situation.

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/191/gay-marriage-in-antiquity-how-far-have-we-come

There is very little mention of marriage between males in the Greek history of same-sex desire and interactions. Perhaps the closest we can come to evidence of any form of lasting homosexual Greek relationship resembling marriage was that of Agathon and Pausanias. This eromenos-and-erastes pair remained a couple far longer than was traditional in Greek pederastic relationships. Based on the evidence available, it is thought that neither man every had a wife or children, and in fact, when Agathon emigrated to Macedonia sometime between 411 and 405 to pursue his career as a dramatist, Pausanias went with him (Dover, II.C.4.: 84). However, there's never any mention of marriage in conjunction with this couple's story. It can be assumed, then, that the idea of marriage between Greek males was rather unheard of and that the act rarely occurred, if it ever did, which would coincide with the Greek idea, similar to the Roman one, of manliness.

http://www.livius.org/ho-hz/homosexuality/homosexuality.html

It was certainly shameful when a man with a beard remained the passive partner (pathikos) and it was even worse when a man allowed himself to be penetrated by another grown-up man. The Greeks even had a pejorative expression for these people, whom were called kinaidoi. They were the targets of ridicule by the other citizens, especially comedy writers. For example, Aristophanes (c.445-c.380) shows them dressed like women, with a bra, a wig and a gown, and calls them eurypr˘ktoi, "wide arses".

Homosexual unions of (what we would today consider) age-appropriate partners were clearly uncommon and socially unacceptable, and it seems that any kind of "marriage" between two such partners was unheard of.

You're welcome.

Cakes:

Homosexual unions of (what we would today consider) age-appropriate partners were clearly uncommon and socially unacceptable, and it seems that any kind of "marriage" between two such partners was unheard of.

You're welcome.


So... you're saying we should bring back pederasty, then? it's Traditional, after all.

arbane:

Cakes:

Homosexual unions of (what we would today consider) age-appropriate partners were clearly uncommon and socially unacceptable, and it seems that any kind of "marriage" between two such partners was unheard of.

You're welcome.


So... you're saying we should bring back pederasty, then? it's Traditional, after all.

I'm sure the practices of Greek pagans are exactly what Jews and Christians are referring to.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked