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