In which ancient societies (other than Greece) was homosexuality accepted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this is just about how many places have recognized gay marriage then I am afraid you are going to lose this argument eventually.

Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden recognize gay marriage. The UK, France, and many others are considering doing so. It is just a matter of time. Of course, it may never happen in places like Saudi Arabia, but then women aren't allowed to drive there either.

All of these countries have in recent years allowed gay marriage, in the same way that the United States is likely going to. The question is more historically-based. One hundred years ago, five hundred years ago, fifteen hundred years ago, two thousand years ago.

[Anonymous]

Some American Indian tribes had a "third" gender - men who lived as women and were accepted as such and had relations with men.

Also, I know that in certain Pacific Islands, same sex relations are pretty well accepted among men.

Additionally there are lots of places around the world where men have sex with men (eg, Mexico, US prisons) but one member of the coupling doesn't define himself as homosexual because he is the "active" partner. That is, only "sissies" are homosexuals in this view.

And a friend told me once that in Kuwait men could have sex every which way with each other as long as they didn't say they were in love or live with another man. Probably the same principle as the paragraph above. Lots of men having sex with men but you're only "homosexual" if you act a certain way.

Sorry I don't have more details on this. Except from my friends' story, I am remembering the vague outline of an article I read years ago. At any rate the reality is that there is a lot more sexual variation historically and currently than the bigots want to acknowledge. They haven't done their research.

[Anonymous]

For thousands of years, people accepted slavery as an institution. For thousands of years, women were the property of the men they married. Gee, most countries have managed to evolve past that point. Not that hard to conceive of a similar change in same-sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, neither of the prior PPs is answering the question. There is no doubt that marriage has taken on various forms across the thousands of years and thousands of world cultures with many different constructs and things permitted and not-permitted. The OP's question is how many times and when and where before today's current push has marriage taken on the form of that between two individuals of the same sex?

Historically, the answer is the roman empire ie Europe and western Asia and north Africa, Greece including the Greek empire, and certain provinces in china had gay marriages. Also some American Indians.

That encompasses quite a lot of territory and population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, neither of the prior PPs is answering the question. There is no doubt that marriage has taken on various forms across the thousands of years and thousands of world cultures with many different constructs and things permitted and not-permitted. The OP's question is how many times and when and where before today's current push has marriage taken on the form of that between two individuals of the same sex?

So your point is that the definition of marriage has evolved over the centuries, but it must stop evolving now?

No. My point is that those answer continue to deflect the question, as does your answer. I personally am against redefining marriage to include same-sex marriages. To my knowledge there are no (or at best a tiny handful) of cultures over the thousands and thousands of years of civilization that including same-sex marriage in their definition of marriage. Something inside of me says that if all of humankind in all of human history has limited marriage to between men and women, then there is something fundamental about the concept of marriage that crosses all of these boundaries.

Ancient cultures routinely practiced pologamy. Does that mean you feel we should embrace that widely accepted definition of marriage, since it was so popular way back when?

Most ancient cultures didn't allow women to own property or participate in government. Should we revoke the 14th and 19th amendments?

Yes, but even with polygamy marriage was recognized as being a union of people raising their own offspring together. That is what marriage has historically been about - family, not coupling. Honestly if marriage was simply about people who love each other wanting to spend their lives together, it would never have been invented.

Better toss the 13th amendment, too. Plenty of ancient cultural support for slavery.

[Anonymous]

What is "natural" usually refers to what occurs in nature, i.e., the state reverted to when civilization asserts no influence. Greece and Rome and other city-states simply do not apply and neither does any other civilization. Animals apply.

And homosexuality occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, neither of the prior PPs is answering the question. There is no doubt that marriage has taken on various forms across the thousands of years and thousands of world cultures with many different constructs and things permitted and not-permitted. The OP's question is how many times and when and where before today's current push has marriage taken on the form of that between two individuals of the same sex?

Historically, the answer is the roman empire ie Europe and western Asia and north Africa, Greece including the Greek empire, and certain provinces in china had gay marriages. Also some American Indians.

That encompasses quite a lot of territory and population.

The Roman empire permitted homosexual marriages? Citation please. We're talking about marriage here, not lovers or relationships or other things that are not defined as marriage.

[Anonymous]

13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

Exactly! Married couples with no children are clearly sinning, by this restrictive view. Utter nonsense.

BTW: The ancient societies who tolerated (and sometimes celebrated) homosexuality are, in general, ones in which reason, learning, and enlightenment were fundamental to the culture. Not ones in which dogmatic religions were fundamental. You will never convince a christian that homosexuality is ok unless it's in their Bible, just like you'll never convince them that god didn't create the universe in 7 days.

I can't for the life of me figure out why OP's friend is allowed to be on facebook, though -- shouldn't she be silent and submissive and not sharing her views where men could read them? I mean, 1 Timothy and all lays that out pretty clearly. I also bet she wears nice clothes and fixes her hair, clearly and expressly prohibited in that chapter. Gosh, she is a sinner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality, marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together. That is why the state has an interest in it. This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child. Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together. Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together. Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality, marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together. That is why the state has an interest in it. This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child. Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together. Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together. Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.

Except for the civilizations mentioned earlier, and therefore it is not EVERY society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, neither of the prior PPs is answering the question. There is no doubt that marriage has taken on various forms across the thousands of years and thousands of world cultures with many different constructs and things permitted and not-permitted. The OP's question is how many times and when and where before today's current push has marriage taken on the form of that between two individuals of the same sex?

Historically, the answer is the roman empire ie Europe and western Asia and north Africa, Greece including the Greek empire, and certain provinces in china had gay marriages. Also some American Indians.

That encompasses quite a lot of territory and population.

The Roman empire permitted homosexual marriages? Citation please. We're talking about marriage here, not lovers or relationships or other things that are not defined as marriage.

Elagabalus and Zoticus, Agustan History. There.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality, marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together. That is why the state has an interest in it. This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child. Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together. Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together. Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.

Just to be clear, you're limiting marriage to those who have (or plan to have) children together naturally.

* Not those who adopt.
* Not those who require any assistance to conceive (sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy, etc.).
* Not those who bring a child into the relationship. (Because that would not be a child the married couple produced "together.")

If you believe marriage should be available to any of the above, but only if the partners are opposite sex, then we're back to simple discrimination. Because many, many gay couples adopt, use alternative methods of conception and have children from prior relationships.

If you believe marriage offers benefits to the child, then you have zero reason to oppose gay marriage -- at least for gay couples who have or plan to have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality, marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together. That is why the state has an interest in it. This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child. Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together. Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together. Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.

Except for the civilizations mentioned earlier, and therefore it is not EVERY society.

No the civilizations mentioned earlier had more tolerant attitudes toward homosexuality. Marriage was still reserved for men and women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:05 -- So based on your analysis, marriage should be available only to those who intend to raise children together?

No, simply stating that in EVERY society, even those that have had relatively accepting attitudes towards homosexuality, marriage has always been a union between people who have or can have children together. That is why the state has an interest in it. This is the reason that no society (that I can think of) has allowed marriage between siblings and parent/child. Marriage has always been an institution reserved for those who theoretically can have children together. Every restriction against it has been towards those who can't (same sex) or shouldn't (close relatives) have children together. Changing this aspect changes the nature of what marriage has always been about.

Just to be clear, you're limiting marriage to those who have (or plan to have) children together naturally.

* Not those who adopt.
* Not those who require any assistance to conceive (sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy, etc.).
* Not those who bring a child into the relationship. (Because that would not be a child the married couple produced "together.")

If you believe marriage should be available to any of the above, but only if the partners are opposite sex, then we're back to simple discrimination. Because many, many gay couples adopt, use alternative methods of conception and have children from prior relationships.

If you believe marriage offers benefits to the child, then you have zero reason to oppose gay marriage -- at least for gay couples who have or plan to have children.

All of the above instances are examples of couples who are RAISING children together not HAVING children together. I could choose to adopt and raise a child with my mother. We would both be acting in the social role of parents, but it would not be our child together.