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

[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?

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.

Ok. ONE individual emperor who might or might not have been transgendered and who might or might not have actually been married versus simply being in a relationship with that other person. That's one person. Just did a quick google search and some reading, and it does not appear as if he legalized same sex marriage for all of rome -- he simplly announced that he himself was married. Now, can you identify a culture or country or empire that permitted same sex marriage?

[Anonymous]

PP here. No christian here who fears gay marriage wants to comment on committing herself to living by 1 Timothy? Cowards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So couples who need a doctor's help to conceive are not having a child together? Really?

As for your example, presumably, you and your mother would also not be sharing a bed. But I'm getting that you don't feel the relationship between the parents is important to the marraige issue at all. It's all about the babies.

So, again, to clarify, you believe that only couples who can produce child together, naturally, should be able to marry. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Ok. ONE individual emperor who might or might not have been transgendered and who might or might not have actually been married versus simply being in a relationship with that other person. That's one person. Just did a quick google search and some reading, and it does not appear as if he legalized same sex marriage for all of rome -- he simplly announced that he himself was married. Now, can you identify a culture or country or empire that permitted same sex marriage?

I can keep doing this. You wanted a cite, you got a cite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is crazy. Are you saying that a straight couple who adopts or uses a sperm donor is not a real marriage, because they do not "have" a child together???? Good luck with finding support for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So couples who need a doctor's help to conceive are not having a child together? Really?

As for your example, presumably, you and your mother would also not be sharing a bed. But I'm getting that you don't feel the relationship between the parents is important to the marraige issue at all. It's all about the babies.

So, again, to clarify, you believe that only couples who can produce child together, naturally, should be able to marry. Right?

To answer your first question. No, couples who use assistance in conceiving (and by that I assume you're referring to artificial insemination) are not having a child together. They are raising a child together. The spouse who is the genetic parent and the gamete donor had the child together.

In regards to your other questions. No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means. There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level. I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings. The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other. It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from. The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
In regards to your other questions. No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means. There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level. I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings. The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other. It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from. The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.

Many same sex couples are raising children. In many cases, these children have a biological connection to one of the parents. The lack of same-sex marriage rights in most states presents a hurdle to those families. I cannot read the above paragraph and not wonder why you would not support same-sex marriage as a means of protecting the rights of same-sex parents. Do you not see the irony in your support of a hetrosexual marriage which does not involve children and your opposition to a same-sex marriage that does involve raising children? It would seem to me that if your concern is social and legal recognition of unions from which children can result, you absolutely have to support same-sex marriage.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In regards to your other questions. No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means. There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level. I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings. The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other. It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from. The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.

Many same sex couples are raising children. In many cases, these children have a biological connection to one of the parents. The lack of same-sex marriage rights in most states presents a hurdle to those families. I cannot read the above paragraph and not wonder why you would not support same-sex marriage as a means of protecting the rights of same-sex parents. Do you not see the irony in your support of a hetrosexual marriage which does not involve children and your opposition to a same-sex marriage that does involve raising children? It would seem to me that if your concern is social and legal recognition of unions from which children can result, you absolutely have to support same-sex marriage.

The right to marriage has never been given to any arrangement of people who happen to be raising children together. Many single mothers move back in with their parents and actively co-parent together. Does that relationship deserve the recognition of marriage? If I choose to raise a child with my brother, should I have the right to marry him, just because we are raising a child together? Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

Ok. ONE individual emperor who might or might not have been transgendered and who might or might not have actually been married versus simply being in a relationship with that other person. That's one person. Just did a quick google search and some reading, and it does not appear as if he legalized same sex marriage for all of rome -- he simplly announced that he himself was married. Now, can you identify a culture or country or empire that permitted same sex marriage?

I can keep doing this. You wanted a cite, you got a cite.

Great, do it. You pointed to one person, not a society in which gay marriage was permitted which was the question I posed.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In regards to your other questions. No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means. There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level. I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings. The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other. It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from. The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.

Many same sex couples are raising children. In many cases, these children have a biological connection to one of the parents. The lack of same-sex marriage rights in most states presents a hurdle to those families. I cannot read the above paragraph and not wonder why you would not support same-sex marriage as a means of protecting the rights of same-sex parents. Do you not see the irony in your support of a hetrosexual marriage which does not involve children and your opposition to a same-sex marriage that does involve raising children? It would seem to me that if your concern is social and legal recognition of unions from which children can result, you absolutely have to support same-sex marriage.

As usual, Jeff is awesome.

PP, you are twisting yourself in knots trying to justify marriage as a social construct designed solely to protect children, while at the same igoring the fact that many gay families include children and the fact that many straight marriages never involve children.

Your premise is frankly absurd. Marriage today is very much about officially recognizing a couple's affection for each other, at least in most Western countries. It also imparts a host of legal and economic benefits, the vast majority of which accrue only to the two partners. Children actually have significant legal protections that don't rely at all on the marital status of their parents.

You're simply reaching, PP. And you're wrong. And I'm pretty sure you know it. Gay marriage just makes you feel "ooky" and you want to find a rational reason for opposing it. There is none. Own your discomfort, realize it's stupid, and get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Great, do it. You pointed to one person, not a society in which gay marriage was permitted which was the question I posed.

OK, the original question was in which ancient societies was homosexuality accepted. The answer was many, perhaps even the majority.
Then you changed the question to in which societies was gay marriage permitted? The answer here includes Belgium, Canada, Portugal, Denmark, Holland, Argentina, Vermont, and shortly in the UK, France, and yes, who knows, maybe coming to a place near you.

I am not sure that seeking historical precedents for civil rights questions is a particularly fruitful way forward. Many things were ubiquitous that we would now consider unacceptable, including polygamy, slavery, routine violence against women, rape in times of war, and so on. But we are in the process of evolving an ethical framework that doesn't require belief in gods or demons, one that is sufficiently enlightened that we do not denigrate particular classes and categories of people simply because they are different from us, or because they have historically been considered lesser or sick by some societies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In regards to your other questions. No I do not believe that every couple who enters a marriage has to have the intention of having a child at all, whether naturally or through other means. There is a big difference in an individual marriage, and what the purpose of marriage serves on a societal level. I am not totally opposed to same sex marriage, but I do have misgivings. The reason for marriage has never been simply about the official recognition of a couple's affection for each other. It has always about giving social & legal recognition to those unions that children can result from. The legalization of same sex marriage represents a major severance from what marriage throughout history has been about.

Many same sex couples are raising children. In many cases, these children have a biological connection to one of the parents. The lack of same-sex marriage rights in most states presents a hurdle to those families. I cannot read the above paragraph and not wonder why you would not support same-sex marriage as a means of protecting the rights of same-sex parents. Do you not see the irony in your support of a hetrosexual marriage which does not involve children and your opposition to a same-sex marriage that does involve raising children? It would seem to me that if your concern is social and legal recognition of unions from which children can result, you absolutely have to support same-sex marriage.

As usual, Jeff is awesome.

PP, you are twisting yourself in knots trying to justify marriage as a social construct designed solely to protect children, while at the same igoring the fact that many gay families include children and the fact that many straight marriages never involve children.

Your premise is frankly absurd. Marriage today is very much about officially recognizing a couple's affection for each other, at least in most Western countries. It also imparts a host of legal and economic benefits, the vast majority of which accrue only to the two partners. Children actually have significant legal protections that don't rely at all on the marital status of their parents.

You're simply reaching, PP. And you're wrong. And I'm pretty sure you know it. Gay marriage just makes you feel "ooky" and you want to find a rational reason for opposing it. There is none. Own your discomfort, realize it's stupid, and get over it.

Yes you're right. Marriage today has over the past four decades turned into being more about officially recognizing a couple's affection for each other, and under this definition there would be very little if any reason to deny the same benefit to same sex couples. If you took the time to read through previous posts, you would realize that my discomfort, as well as I assume many other's is that this is a radical shift from what the purpose of marriage has been throughout all societies in history. I personally think the shift of marriage being more centered on pleasure, versus its more traditional role of binding families together has weakened it as an institution. My point being is that same sex marriage represents a VERY radical shift on the meaning of marriage, an institution that has been the bed rock of civilization for thousands of years, and think of me what you will, but the notion makes me very apprehensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Great, do it. You pointed to one person, not a society in which gay marriage was permitted which was the question I posed.

OK, the original question was in which ancient societies was homosexuality accepted. The answer was many, perhaps even the majority.
Then you changed the question to in which societies was gay marriage permitted? The answer here includes Belgium, Canada, Portugal, Denmark, Holland, Argentina, Vermont, and shortly in the UK, France, and yes, who knows, maybe coming to a place near you.

I am not sure that seeking historical precedents for civil rights questions is a particularly fruitful way forward. Many things were ubiquitous that we would now consider unacceptable, including polygamy, slavery, routine violence against women, rape in times of war, and so on. But we are in the process of evolving an ethical framework that doesn't require belief in gods or demons, one that is sufficiently enlightened that we do not denigrate particular classes and categories of people simply because they are different from us, or because they have historically been considered lesser or sick by some societies.

Who says marriage is a civil rights issue?

[Anonymous]

Why would there be a need to have a union of "till death do we part" if kids were not part of the picture? If you're marrying for affection and partnership, why not have a union of "till no longer mutually satisfactory". If society sees marriage as being more about the later, then doesn't it lose it's meaning?

[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.

Muslim cultures are not that anti gays
it is not something men get caught doing, and for women (lesbians) it is easy