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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]
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.  [/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

They aren't ASKING to marry their parents.  [b]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???  [/b]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.  [/quote]

You are confused.  Read through this thread.[/quote]

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.  [b]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".[/b]  Of course when you presuppose that purpose, you get the answer you are looking for.  It's a tautology.[/quote][/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics