Regarding Gay Marriage

[kurto]

This is excerpted from my goofy post with Jax. Since it was the one 'serious' part, I thought I would separate it.

Many continue to repeat the seemingly made up idea that marriage has always been (and defined as) between a man and a woman.

To counter another false myth that so many repeat verbatim (I don't know WHY so many repeat these things when they're very easy to research)

FIRST: excerpts from (from http://www.infopt.demon.co.uk/marriage.htm)

Consulting my Grand Larousse – and the Oxford English Dictionary for good measure – I discover that the word "marry" comes from the Latin term for "a husband" (maritus), which comes from the Latin word for "a man" (mas, maris). The notion of "marriage" therefore doesn't seem to refer to "wives".

Theoretically a person who gets "married" may take either a husband or a wife. But if we look at the history of "marriage" ceremonies, we will note that the most common meaning is, indeed, "to take a husband".
This provokes a number of conclusions: (1) a woman may "marry" a husband; (2) a man may "marry" a husband; and (3) a woman may not "marry" a woman. That is, lesbians cannot "marry" one another without violating the laws of linguistics, but gay men can.

So much for words. Let us now peruse the tarnished pages of history. Gay men seem to have frequently married one another throughout history. In fact, in some societies marriages between gay men were officially recognized by the state, as in ancient Sparta, and on the Dorian island of Thera.

Much later, in 2nd century Rome, conjugal contracts between men of about the same age were ridiculed but legally binding. Such marriages were blessed by pagan religions, particularly sects of the Mother Goddess Cybele (imported from Asia Minor). At the ceremony, the bridal party consists entirely of men, who enter the temple and deck each other with "gay fillets round the forehead . . . and strings of orient perals." They light a torch in honor of the goddess and sacrifice a pregnant swine. One man gets up and chooses a husband for himself, and dances himself into a frenzy. Then he drinks deeply from a goblet in the shape of a large penis, flings the goblet away, strips off his clothes, and "takes the stole and flammea of a bride" and the two men are married.

AND

Let us now leap ahead to early 18th century London, where gay men also got married, but without legal sanction. In the 1720s there were about 40 "molly houses" in central London, disorderly pubs or coffee houses where gay men (called "mollies") socialized, singing bawdy songs and dancing country dances while someone played the fiddle. Many of these gay clubs had a "Marrying Room" or "Chapel", where, according to witnesses, "They would go out by couples into another room on the same floor, to be married, as they called it, and when they came back they would tell what they had been doing." These marriages were not monogamous, and 18-year-old Ned Courtney was "helped to two or three Husbands" in the Marrying Room of the Royal Oak at the corner of St James's Square, Pall Mall.
AND

Let us now leap across the waters to look at gay marriages among the American Indians, particularly the Sioux and the Cheyenne. In most such marriages one of the two men was a berdache, a transvestite/medicine man who wore men's clothes only when he joined a war party, where he cared for the wounded. The berdaches were especially popular with young people, for they were excellent matchmakers – in a sense they personified the very concept of marriage – and fine love talkers. They got married to either the loafers of the village, or would become the second or third "wife" of the chieftain. Usually their husbands were more ridiculed than they themselves were, not because of homosexuality, which Indians generally tolerated, but because such husbands usually abandoned their economic status in society, and let the berdache do all the work to create the model household.

And so that I can multisource: FROM http://www.waf.org/familyarchives/ma...20marriage.htm
We know this because we know that marriage is a timeless institution, and it has always been a union between a man and a woman. As marriage is the very foundation of society, tinkering with something so fundamental is surely foolhardy.

This is the sort of language we hear in debates on whether we should legalize same-sex marriage.

But let's just pause for a moment so that some facts can creep into this discussion.

The truth is that same-sex marriage has a long and distinguished history. Judaic scripture, for instance, indicates that same-sex marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt. Of course, it's no secret that the ancient Greeks and Romans recognized homosexual marriage, not to mention imperial China and some Native American tribes and a host of other peoples living around the world.

But here's a curveball for you.

There's even evidence that the Catholic Church recognized same-sex marriage in the early Middle Ages. Scholars dispute whether these unions should actually be called marriages, but there is no doubt that the Church conducted formal ceremonies to recognize the bond between same-sex partners. The Church endorsed sexual union between members of the same sex!


*********************
So, my point is simple. Debate marriage all you want, but try to be accurate. Marriage has NOT always been simply between a man or a woman. Nor has it been strictly defined that way.

(*On another point... I haven't searched for this article, but there was another one about the history of the word; they looked at old dictionaries and found that many never defined gender. Many legal definitions as well gave the definition as follows:
The legal union of two people. Once a couple is married, their rights and responsibilities toward one another concerning property and support are defined by the laws of the state in which they live. A marriage can only be terminated by a court granting a divorce or annulment.

Many dictionaries CHANGED the definition to specify gender only after pressure from outside groups.

Enough said.

[kurto]

Just curious... is anyone surprised that not one of the numerous idiots who are constantly saying, "marriage has always been between a man and a woman"... have nothing to add here? Where's the big fool Jaxmike? You have repeatedly stated that Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. You're always talking about how you're one of the most intelligent people on this forum and you're rarely wrong.

How is it that in 2 minutes, I was able to find multiple sources showing gay marriage in different parts of the world and going back centuries?

How did you decide Marriage has always been between men and women? Clearly you never did any research. It would appear you just make things up and decide they're true.

[MMMMMM]

This general topic has previously been discussed and debated at length, so that may partially account for the lack of responses. You did bring to light some interesting historical tidbits, and I find it quite surprising that such an institution was so much more widespread in historical pockets than I would have guessed.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
This general topic has been discussed and debated at length previously, so that may partially account for the lack of responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't trying to start a whole debate about gay marriage. I'm just always fascinated by people who support their arguments with statements like "its always been between..." with NO reason to think that. I just find it surprising how MANY people say these sorts of things without even doing a modicum of research on it. Since they didn't research it, I always wonder why they arbitrarily make up facts. It seems so lazy and makes one look ridiculous. You know what I mean?

[ QUOTE ]
You did bring to light some interesting historical tidbits, and I find it interesting that such an institution was more widespread in historical pockets than I would have guessed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I didn't know much about it myself. When people make statements of fact in a debate, I tend to research it since I don't like to arbitrarily disagree with people. I thought the part about Native American Indians was particularly interesting. We all have images of Indians... for some reason, I never pictured any of them being gay.

[vulturesrow]

Color me unimpressed by your "research". You found one webpage authored by an gay activist, who provides almost no background material. As for your curveball on the Catholic church, try again. Im not sure where you pulled that gem from but Im guessing at some point it started with a book called Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell. Here is a link that addresses this book and its claims.


That being said, I dont disagree with with your underlying point, that is to try and be more familiar with what you are debating. But sometimes a quick google search can do more harm than good.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Color me unimpressed by your "research". You found one webpage authored by an gay activist, who provides almost no background material.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly you didn't read it too closely. I provided 2 sources and outright claimed that I was multisourcing.

That's two more sources then I've ever seen by someone who says its always been between a man and a woman.

[ QUOTE ]
As for your curveball on the Catholic church, try again. Im not sure where you pulled that gem from but Im guessing at some point it started with a book called Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, by John Boswell. Here is a link that addresses this book and its claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, that would be a THIRD source. But, you'll note that it says its not conclusive. It mentions the debate about it. But it is up for debate.

Just for fun, here's more:
From NPR "But some historians have found references to gay marriage dating back to classical times. NPR's Margot Adler reports."

From another cite (that cites a law case where I assume the history was recorded)
"The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996)."

Here's a writing by a woman who observed a Christian lesbian marriage ceremony in a church-
"This is a subject about which I have the good fortune to speak not merely as a scholar or an observer, but as a participant. Nine years ago I was joined in devout sisterhood to another woman, apparently in just such a ceremony as Boswell claims to elucidate in his book. The ceremony took place during a journey to some of the Syrian Christian communities of Turkey and the Middle East, and the other member of this same-sex union was my colleague Professor Susan Ashbrook Harvey of Brown University." (Just so you know that this isn't some crazy gay activist, this is a professor who thought Boswell's book was unreliable.)

And just to show how the idea of marriage has changed, this is from CHRISTIANITY TODAY:
"Yet, as usual in America's myopic debates, not many on either side realize that the struggle over defining marriage has been going on for centuries already.

For example, during the early church period, some religious leaders denounced marriage altogether, while others advocated polygamy. And during the Reformation, Henry VIII infamously flouted the explicit teaching the Roman Catholic Church to seek a divorce." Marriage is holy? Not according to the early leaders of the church.

There was some other interesting but terrible stuff about the history of marriage but its too late to keep going on.

I think its pretty easy to see that the notion that marriage has always been just between a man and a woman is suspect at best.

[vulturesrow]

Kurto,

You are correct, somehow I missed that second link, my apologies. That being said, your second source is hardly more authoritative than the first.

[ QUOTE ]
Here's a writing by a woman who observed a Christian lesbian marriage ceremony in a church-
"This is a subject about which I have the good fortune to speak not merely as a scholar or an observer, but as a participant. Nine years ago I was joined in devout sisterhood to another woman, apparently in just such a ceremony as Boswell claims to elucidate in his book. The ceremony took place during a journey to some of the Syrian Christian communities of Turkey and the Middle East, and the other member of this same-sex union was my colleague Professor Susan Ashbrook Harvey of Brown University." (Just so you know that this isn't some crazy gay activist, this is a professor who thought Boswell's book was unreliable.)


[/ QUOTE ]

Talk about not reading closely!! Just a couple paragraphs later she writes:

If this were all that Professor Boswell were claiming to have "discovered," neither I nor anyone else would be likely to dispute his findings. It seems reasonable to assume that ceremonies like the one Susan Ashbrook Harvey and I went through continue to take place in those eastern churches that preserve the rite of adoption (adelphopoiesis) for friends. In fact, scholars of the liturgy have known for years of these rituals.

But any such modest claim is not what Boswell has in mind. He claims that the "brother/sister-making" rituals found in manuscripts and certain published works are ancient ceremonies whose cryptic (or, in current argot, "encoded") purpose has been to give ecclesiastical blessing to homosexual or lesbian relationships, thus making them actual nuptial ceremonies. This startling claim is certainly far from the reality of the ceremony in which we participated nine years ago.

Perhaps you should go back and read the entire article.

[ QUOTE ]
And just to show how the idea of marriage has changed, this is from CHRISTIANITY TODAY:
"Yet, as usual in America's myopic debates, not many on either side realize that the struggle over defining marriage has been going on for centuries already.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you read the entire article you will find nothing that implicitly or explicitly states that early Church leaders condoned the marriage of homosexuals. The struggle was over what the exact purpose and meaning of marriage was within the context of Christianity and the Church.

[ QUOTE ]
From another cite (that cites a law case where I assume the history was recorded)
"The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996)."

[/ QUOTE ]

A little better attempt but still hardly proving that male-female wasnt the norm, rather than the exception.

Your one-liner from NPR I was unable to track down. It helps to provide links to the articles you cite. You did show a good example of quoting out of context however.

Again, I do appreciate the larger point you are trying to make and I applaud you for going above and beyond the normal level of effort displayed daily in this forum.

[IQ89]

A gay married couple (Tim & Jim), working out the final details for their adoption of a healthy baby boy:









Later that night Tim & Jim are celebrating the approval of the adoption!!















The day Tim & Jim get their new healthy son.







It's the next day and Junior gets his first good look at his two new daddies?









[img]http://rds.yahoo.com/S=96062883/K=surprised+baby/v=2/SID=w/l=IVS/SIG=127hb8q58/EXP=1116837801/*-http%3A//cache.corbis.com/agent/12/96/62/12966215.jpg[/img]






Junior four years later:















Junior soon learns there are consequences to be payed for being different:















Junior is consoled by his two daddies. He's told to that being different is a good thing and to just hang tough. "Things will get better."





Years later Junior decides to be bold his first day of high school, and to just be himself...come what may.


















Later that same day Junior is introduced to The Atomic Wedgie:
















Junior is disillusioned to say the least. So what does he do? He goes home, and like a hundred times before he dresses up like his favorite Rocky-Horror-Picture-Show character and contemplates his own mortality.













Is this the life we want for tomorrow's kids? We have a choice!

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, your second source is hardly more authoritative than the first.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was by no means hinting that any one source was more authoritative then any other. I was only trying to show a variety of sources which refer to gay marriages.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you should go back and read the entire article.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read quite a bit of it. I knew it was critical of Boswells book. (didn't I state as much earlier? can't remember)

[ QUOTE ]
If you read the entire article you will find nothing that implicitly or explicitly states that early Church leaders condoned the marriage of homosexuals. The struggle was over what the exact purpose and meaning of marriage was within the context of Christianity and the Church.


[/ QUOTE ]

I apologize. I was unclear as to why I linked to this article. (If I'm remembering this correctly) I was only demonstrating that there was a long history of struggling to define what marriage was... (as opposed to some who believe it has always been looked at the way they look at it.)

[ QUOTE ]
It helps to provide links to the articles you cite.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. It was very late and I was just doing a quickie.

To find almost anything I found, I simply searched for +history +gay +marriage and checked a number of the hits.

As you know, I wasn't trying to do anything more then suggest that the notion that marriage has always been one way, always been looked at the same way (and that of course included whether or not homosexual marriage was ever permitted) has varied in different countries at different times.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I do appreciate the larger point you are trying to make and I applaud you for going above and beyond the normal level of effort displayed daily in this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gracias!

[kurto]

Yes. That makes sense. If you have a child raised by gay parents... they will kill themselves.

Great contribution.

Bigotry RULES!