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

[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.

You're right, and I'm not the OP but was seeking insight from those who are pro-gay marriage with regard to a particular part of her post that I myself have wondered about as I considered where I stand on this issue. To a certain extent, your response goes to my point. All of these things that you point to have been part of some (even many, but certainly not all) cultures and societies since time was recorded. Their constructs may have been different and may have been directed for or against various groups based on race, religion, gender and so forth. The thing that is missing on all these lists, and has been a consistent piece of every society since the beginning of time (at least, no one has identified any culture to the contrary), is the idea of marriage as being a heterosexual union. Marriage itself has had various permutations including polygamy, child brides, incestual marriages and so on, yet in every single society it has remained the same in that at its base there is a male and a female.

I don't know whether it's God, evolution, human survival or what that is behind this, but something about me has me questioning why this bedrock of civilization must now be shifted and whether that's a good thing in the long-term of humankind. I am Christian. I do not hate gays, and have wonderful friends, family and colleagues who are gay. Being opposed to gay marriage does not, in and of itself, make me a bigot as many on these boards would claim.

In fact, the fact that I'm asking for examples across the globe and across time (meaning, not in the last 50yrs) that would demonstrate that marriage has not always been a male-female construct should in and of itself be an indication that perhaps, just perhaps, you could shift my POV.

[Anonymous]

19:33 You seem like a reasonable person, so can you explain what it is you fear will happen if the definition of marriage changes (for the umpteenth time, as you've noted) to include same sex couples like those in your life whom you claim to respect?

[Anonymous]

19:33, in a society like ours that values individual liberty, I think that the presumption should be more freedom for all, and therefore the burden of justification is on those who would deny the freedom to marry to gays. And frankly, "because that's how it's always been" isn't at all persuasive to me, because, as has been pointed out upthread, that was true of slavery, etc. So why SHOULDN'T gays have the right to marry?

[Anonymous]

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.

Interestingly, marriage did not begin as a sacred bond between individuals or have anything to do with love. Marriage was about property transfer ownership. Women were basically property to men and had no (or very limited) rights for land ownership, property ownership, ability to enter a trade or participate in civic activities. Women had no "legal" say in who they married. Men also had limited choice as often the fathers would arrange the marriage. Marriage defined how much the father had to pay the husband for taking on the burden of marrying his daughter. Marriage defined the off-spring of the married women's rights either to to inheritance for a son or husband's obligation to support the daughter until he could marry her off. There would be no reason for two men to marry as their rights in soceity were already secure. No one had to buy a spouse and no one was obligated to provide food and shelter for them. There would be no reason for two women to marry because women were property. You wouldn't let your barn animals make life choices why would you allow a women to do this?

Something inside you should be reminding you that women are property and that a fundmental concept of male superiority should be recognized. Following this fundamental belief that so many societies have held for centuries, it follows that men can have whatever sexual relations with other men that they want.

[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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

[Anonymous]

To the pp who feels that the last 50 years don't count, you are assuming falsely that the model of marriage from 60 years ago (in the western world) matches the model of marriage from 300 years ago or 500 or 2000 years ago. In most of human history, people did not marry for love but for economic reasons. I recall reading that the idea of marrying for love in the 1700s was considered quite scandalous.

While I understand the sentiment behind your argument about procreation and marriage, basically this model of marriage you are talking about is a moving target. Our experience of "family" is not static. Scholars who have studied family life and how it has changed understand this.

Stephanie Coontz writes about the history of family life. The title of her book, The Way We Never Were, reflects her view that the modern concept of the family has been based on romantic notions about the past that are not accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

No, I get what you said. You said that it is necessary to be in a relationship in which a child can result. I countered that same sex couples can do this. You countered that this is not sufficient for marriage by providing counter-examples that meet the standard and still should not result in a marriage. But I never said that it should be the sole requirement for marriage. That's your contention, summarized when you state " Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result". Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for. It's a tautology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

No, I get what you said. You said that it is necessary to be in a relationship in which a child can result. I countered that same sex couples can do this. You countered that this is not sufficient for marriage by providing counter-examples that meet the standard and still should not result in a marriage. But I never said that it should be the sole requirement for marriage. That's your contention, summarized when you state " Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result". Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for. It's a tautology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

No, I get what you said. You said that it is necessary to be in a relationship in which a child can result. I countered that same sex couples can do this. You countered that this is not sufficient for marriage by providing counter-examples that meet the standard and still should not result in a marriage. But I never said that it should be the sole requirement for marriage. That's your contention, summarized when you state " Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result". Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for. It's a tautology.

When I state that marriage has always been an institution reserved for couples who theoretically would be procreating together, I am not stating a personal opinion about what I believe marriage should be. I'm pointing out a historical fact. Every society has created some version of marriage. Yes, the legalities of power between spouses have varied. But the basic essence of marriage, that it is a union between people who presumably would be creating children together, has not changed. That has been consistent throughout time. You could certainly make an argument that there is no reason for that to continue to be the case. However doing so fundamentally changes the nature of what marriage has been about to simply a recognition of a union between people who share a romantic relationship. That's not necessarily a bad thing (although, I have my concerns) But it is a vastly different change in the meaning of marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

In fact, the fact that I'm asking for examples across the globe and across time (meaning, not in the last 50yrs) that would demonstrate that marriage has not always been a male-female construct should in and of itself be an indication that perhaps, just perhaps, you could shift my POV.

Why exclude examples from the last 50 years? Many would argue that Canada or Argentina in 2012 are more relevant for making ethical assessments than what the Aztecs used to do. They used to rip out the hearts of thousands of victims while they were still alive to appease their dark gods (the Aztecs, that is, not the Canadians). I don't know what their views on gay marriage were, and quite frankly I don't care, and nor should you. The question here is about right and wrong, not what about people did in the ancient past. The fact that people did something in the distant past doesn't tell you much about whether or not it is right or wrong.

Your argument is that marriage is universally between a man and a woman (or a man and lots of women). The answer is no, it is not, because there are 8 or 10 countries right now where marriage can be between two people of the same sex. So on what basis are you excluding this information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

No, I get what you said. You said that it is necessary to be in a relationship in which a child can result. I countered that same sex couples can do this. You countered that this is not sufficient for marriage by providing counter-examples that meet the standard and still should not result in a marriage. But I never said that it should be the sole requirement for marriage. That's your contention, summarized when you state " Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result". Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for. It's a tautology.

When I state that marriage has always been an institution reserved for couples who theoretically would be procreating together, I am not stating a personal opinion about what I believe marriage should be. I'm pointing out a historical fact. Every society has created some version of marriage. Yes, the legalities of power between spouses have varied. But the basic essence of marriage, that it is a union between people who presumably would be creating children together, has not changed. That has been consistent throughout time. You could certainly make an argument that there is no reason for that to continue to be the case. However doing so fundamentally changes the nature of what marriage has been about to simply a recognition of a union between people who share a romantic relationship. That's not necessarily a bad thing (although, I have my concerns) But it is a vastly different change in the meaning of marriage.

You seem to be confusing cause and correlation. Marriage for most of human history has been about economics - it's about forming alliances that provide materially for the families involved. Children are an extension of that principle, not the genesis of it. That's why girl children are perceived as being lesser/disposable in so many societies and why boys are universally desired. Girl children don't extend the wealth of the family. Boy children do. If your thesis, that marriage is an institution designed for the support and care of children were true, then all children (boys and girls) would be the goal of those unions and every child would be precious. That is not, however, true. Only certain children (boys) are valued, and they are valued *because* of their economic return to the family. In many societies, in fact, it has been perfectly acceptable to murder girl children at birth because they are seen as a economic negative. Children are the means, not the ends, of marriage. Your notion that they are the goal of marriage is a modern interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents. It is YOUR assertion that child rearing is an intrinsic component of marriage. And now you are suggesting that the gay marriage supporters think it is the ONLY NECESSARY requirement in order to get married. WTH??? We don't think married couples have to have children AT ALL if they don't want them.

Let's be clear here: We believe that two unmarried consenting adults, of any gender, should be allowed to marry because they are in a committed, loving relationship and want to be married.

You are confused. Read through this thread.

No, I get what you said. You said that it is necessary to be in a relationship in which a child can result. I countered that same sex couples can do this. You countered that this is not sufficient for marriage by providing counter-examples that meet the standard and still should not result in a marriage. But I never said that it should be the sole requirement for marriage. That's your contention, summarized when you state " Marriage is society's solution to the fact that when men and women have sex with each other, a child is the likely result". Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for. It's a tautology.

When I state that marriage has always been an institution reserved for couples who theoretically would be procreating together, I am not stating a personal opinion about what I believe marriage should be. I'm pointing out a historical fact. Every society has created some version of marriage. Yes, the legalities of power between spouses have varied. But the basic essence of marriage, that it is a union between people who presumably would be creating children together, has not changed. That has been consistent throughout time. You could certainly make an argument that there is no reason for that to continue to be the case. However doing so fundamentally changes the nature of what marriage has been about to simply a recognition of a union between people who share a romantic relationship. That's not necessarily a bad thing (although, I have my concerns) But it is a vastly different change in the meaning of marriage.

There you go again. Throughout human history, old and barren women have been allowed to marry. Couples not desiring children have been able to marry. In at least three civilizations I can think of, men have been allowed to marry. And yet you continue to beat the same drum. It hasn't been reserved solely for those who would be procreating together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:19:33 You seem like a reasonable person, so can you explain what it is you fear will happen if the definition of marriage changes (for the umpteenth time, as you've noted) to include same sex couples like those in your life whom you claim to respect?

I think there have been two of us who are against gay marriage posting in the last 12 or so hours, but I wanted to respond to those like the above who were questioning my line of questioning.

In answer to your question, I'll admit that I'm not quite sure. It's not an "ooky" feeling, as someone termed it a page or two ago, it's more of a philisophical concern with regard to what are missing in making this fundamental shift in the construct of marriage. Is there a long-term impact on society that we can't fathom right now because you can't un-ring the bell on this. It's an easy answer to just say well, we're finally more open minded after millenia and millenia, but I don't know that it's that easy.

I know this probably isn't a satisfactory answer for many who are going to jump all over me, but it's my honest answer driven by the fact that I AM thinking about this and I do think it's appropriate to look at it the way I am since I do think it's probably one of the very few unifying threads across all civilizations that the family unit has man and woman at its base regardless of how that marriage came about, regardless of whether it had children, regardless of other constructs of numbers of women, race or religion.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that opponents of gay marriage never answer the questions of how or why "marriage" will be damaged if same sex couples are afforded the same rights. They will declaratively state that marriage will be destroyed but can offer no arguments as to how or why this destruction will occur.

Some will go as far to say that they like gays but just don't think they should marry. I really find this hard to swallow. I would put forward that the real objection to gay marriage is coming from fear that by legalizing marriage more legitimacy is given to being gay. Opponents to gay marriage do not want gays to be seen as equal, legitimate members of society. They want them to be ostracized, to hide their identity so others can pretend they aren't gay, and if their own offspring happen to be gay they would prefer that they pretend to be straight, hide their relationships, or perhaps even enter into a fake marriage with a woman. Opponents may feel that being gay is a "choice" not the way you were born. As long as this choice is not an accepted or legitimate choice then they reason that fewer people will choose this lifestyle. The social conservative position is not that individuals have the freedom to choose their own lifestyle, it is that they conform to the lifestyle of the social conservatives. There is a fundamental belief within social conservatism that asserts society can only function or functions best if individuals hold the same beliefs. Diversity of religion, lifestyle, sexual orientation may be grudgingly tolerated in small circumstances but legitimizing diversity as being truly equal is against its core.

The PPs who are opposed to gay marriage would not be open to changing their minds based on historical references to gay marriage in ancient times. They fundamentally do not think that anyone should be gay and that embracing diversity is a threat to their beliefs. Its hard to admit that you not tolerant unless you are very extreme. They are grasping at any reason to oppose gay marriage in the hopes that they do not have to admit their intolerance. I almost have more respect for the extreme far right individuals who openly admit they think no one should be gay as at least they are honest and own their intolerant speech and behavior.