On the other hand given Rome it was more likely the issue of status (marrying his slave) than gender that was at issue, and clearly there was such a ceremony for him to have engaged in the act- Civil ceremonies weren't a part of Roman culture which meant somewhere a priest *prerformed* the marriage in full keeping with their faith.

Caligula was equally criticized for marrying a prostitute reputed to be the most wanton woman in all of Rome, certainly we wouldn't suggest it was because she was a woman.

What Nero provides is documentation, since most marriges- stright or homosexual- were not documented at the time. Of course in a great many cultures of teh time marriage was an issue of property transfer, in which the wife was the property, and in those cultures there was certainly no homosexual mariage.

I will admit, I don't understand if Nero is just an example of something more common, or a 'crazy Nero did it, check that out'.

@silveroak

I wouldn't discount it I guess, but ah, you just reminded me of something when you mentioned Caligula. *chuckles*

I'd note that he had a...more than normal closeness to his favorite horse ;).

I'm not sure if it is representative of the norm, but I think I can mirror Katisara's tentative query; for instance, just because Caligula was in love with his horse (made it a priest and gave it a seat in the roman consulate too) doesn't necessarily entail that that Bestiality was a commonplace thing.  It does seem to be more political mudslinging than an accurate account.

Nor, of course, would something being a commonplace thing necessarily mean it should be something we have, as Argument by tradition is a bad argument anyways, applied either for or against something.

So I don't argue against the idea that Marriage is a concept originating solely from religious tradition because I think it justifies gay marriage, I'm just pointing out that it isn't correct.

I don't know. The only counter-examples proposed so far are Chinese, and Nero. There are other specific examples - contracts between Greek men and boys (although I wouldn't go so far as calling those 'marriages'), between Native Americans who recognized the male 'wife' as having two souls and thusly, being a woman in spirit, if not in flesh (and therefore, not truly homosexual), Hindus marrying males who represent gods (and therefore, again, not the standard situation).

If you were to stop the clock say 50 years ago, I'd feel comfortable saying I'm not aware of any mainstream religions that support homosexual marriages (again, noting there are special exceptions), and excepting China and, perhaps just recently, Scandinavia, any major countries where it was accepted as a cultural norm.

Yes, the Abrahamic religions run contrary to most religions in many cases, but this doesn't seem to be one of them. Looking at Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, and so on, homosexuality either isn't given any focus, or is specifically denied.

But this is, of course, talking about the history of the institution, not as it stands currently. There are certainly aspects of the institution, once incorporated into the religious or historical views, which I think we can agree are outdated.

(Also as a note, I don't know that I would consider Hammburabi's code secular either. After all, in the preface it says "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land." In this time, the kings were oftentimes considered the direct representative of God - there was no secular government. The government directly supports and obeys the gods, or it fails. Legal institutions being also religious in basis wasn't just common, it was arguably necessary.)

The point is no 'it was done in ancient times therefore it should be done now', the point is that the argument that 'marriage has always been between a man and a woman in every culture and we should continue that' is full of the leavings of the sacred male animal of ehe Hindi.
Besides, if we were really going to talk about traditional marriage we would be discussing bride prices and proof of virginity.

So you have counterexamples beyond the example and the half currently presented?

Because, for all the fuss that has been made, I haven't seen any beyond the ones I myself first brought up.



Those aren't universal, and even when they are in place, are oftentimes more cultural than religious.

So, what about the higher rates of domestic abuse in same-sex households?

I was thinking about this last night (and wrote a well-thought out post about it this morning, until the internet ate it).

The popular claim right now is that the conservative Christian right has white-washed history to represent it a particular way. But it occurs to me that there's no reason not to ask whether the left is doing the same thing.

The claim about marriage being religious rather than secular is a little unfair either way. Prior to the Enlightenment, most every civil government in a location with a strong religion (i.e., most places) had governments that were both civil and religious. The earliest examples, the king was also a religious figure. Looking at Rome, the most 'modern' example from Europe's ancient history, they started and ended every session with prayers to the dominant gods, and paid significant attention and coin to the priests and prophets. Every significant civil action was also grounded in religion, and vice versa, because by employing religion you bind the governed people together, lend legitimacy to your actions, and simply because in most places, people believed gods were active everywhere, all the time. Trying to separate your common marriage between religious and secular is like trying to wear a jacket and not sleeves. In most cases, it simply doesn't make sense.

The second argument is more testable. If we accept the popular argument that homosexuality is inborn and not a result of nurture (which does not seem unreasonable, but I can't claim evidence either way), we should expect the number of homosexuals at any given time period to be about equal to what we see currently - 8-10%. The number of ACTIVE homosexuals will be higher or lower based on cultural norms and expectations, of course. So if we take a given culture and argue that homosexual marriages were perfectly normal and accepted, we should expect to see that 8-10% of the marriages are homosexual marriages. Even accepting bad record-keeping, if I can name 20 heterosexual marriages in this culture, you should be able to name 2 homosexual marriages.

Does this seem reasonable?

Even a single counter-example dismisses a claim of universality. Since three have been presented (native American, Nero, and China) I'd say teh myth is thoroughly shattered. The fact you were aware fo counterexamples simply suggests a certain intellectual dishonesty in claiming universality.

On the topic of Nero: Nero live from 37 to 68 AD. on http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-marriage.php



So the issue of status in and of itself would have been a great scandal (in fact a breaking of Roman law) when it came to Nero's relationships, and even here within Roman society (as well as Greek, Egyptian, and Jewish) the marriage was a transfer of teh woman as property from father to husband. The same occured in India where homosexuality was not taboo (in fact the Kama Sutra contains many religiously correct ways for a man to copulate with another man depending on their relative social positions) but marriage was heterosexual and a transfer of property.

In Norse culture marriage was about producing children and was a social obligation of men and women, but the raping of vanquished men on raids was also an act that a viking male was expected to perform, as it was submissiveness rather than homosexuality which was looked down upon. Vikings raised money to be able to get land and marry by going raiding... and while it was expected they would do so obviously not all were successfull at it.

As previously mentioned native Americans and other tribal societies frequntly honored teh idea of a man with a woman's spirit or vice versa and allwed people to marry according to their identified gender rather than their biological one.

Mesopotamia and Babylon marriage was clearly a property transfer issue as well, and applied exlusively to women being transfered between men.

The Aztecs considered marriage to be the transfer of a woman as property from father to husband.

In Early Christianity Marriage was first considered to be a 'lesser' sin but still to be avoided, and later was a transfer of authority over the woman to her husband.

In fact for the vast majority of cultures a marriage is something arranged between the father's of the bride and groom transfering ownership of the wife from the father to the groom. In some cases in ancinet Greece an older man would give his daughter to his younger lover in marriage as a gift. So for all those wanting to 'defend the traditional marriage' you might want to look back at what that was.

Firstly, the suggestion of intellectual dishonesty is insulting.

Secondly, after having myself brought up the three counter-examples to my own argument, I addressed two of them, as to why one is not relevant, and the second of questionable relevance. A single counterexample does not dismiss the question of universality when we're discussing sociology, however. Sociology is, by its nature, a study of statistics to create generalizations, with the recognition that there will always be exceptions. So unless we have enough counter-examples to create a trend, one nation under one limited period of time is not enough to counter the argument.




Thank you for gathering those links. It does seem to support the idea that homosexual marriage was just about unheard of (even if homosexuality itself was not). If your argument is that there are other aspects of marriage we should also take into consideration, that's fair (and I would actually be quite interested in it, even though I would not have much to add), but I think it would be best to focus on one issue at a time, so as to avoid confusion, yes?

There is a difference ebtween generalization and universality *all* cultures or *every* culture is a different statement than 'generally this is true over a broad range of cultures'.

The argument is very different in terms of that perspective- yes generally homosexual marriage was not endorsed by religion or teh state, but this is also *paired with* the fact that generally marriage was a form of ownership of reproductive capabilities and women by men. The ancient widespread definition of marriage (a man owning a woman) precluded teh possibility of homosexual marriage. That definition has changed. In cultures where that definition was not held (which were exceptionally rare) generally homosexual marriage of one form or another was accepted.

So from a social standpoint either men own women or homosexual marriage is acceptable.

I don't think I used the specific term 'universal', so you can put whichever term you wish into my argument.

Your second point is worth considering though. I have to admit, I don't know very much about that detail of marriage, especially outside of my own culture. I certainly don't know enough to say it is generally true, and I feel like, given its very nature, it is relatively difficult to test for. I'm curious what other people have to say on the matter.

Even within our own culture teh definition and understanding of marriage has been changing quickly- 40 years ago a man could not be arrested for raping his wife because that was his right. So exactly what kind of traditional marriage are the conservatives defending? It seems to me the options are going backwards or accepting that it is a very short tradition...

Checking back, I don't think I said Secular, I'm pretty sure I said Civil; I'm aware Secularism is a relatively new term and concept. Though if I did say that, I apologize.

There was less distinguishment between Government and Religion before the enlightenment, this is true.  But they are still distinguishable; A leader or code of laws being endorsed by religion is very different from a Religious Leader or Religious Laws.  There are Kings and there are Popes, if you will.

Example A: Hammurabi was given the duty of writing the laws by the Gods.
Example B: The Pharaoh was God.

If a demographic you fell under was shown to have statistically higher rates of domestic abuse, do you feel that would be grounds for the government to prohibit you from getting married?

---
(I'm not sure if your claim can be verified or whether it has more to do with the views of the larger society towards them than their sexual preferences, but whether it's true or not is irrelevant to the argument)

I haven't read all the above posts, but I'll post a few thoughts on the subject:

1) The 14th amendment (due process and equal protection) is a slippery one, using different standards.  The judge here used a standard of having no rational reason to deny due process.  That's his opinion, and one that is wrong for a variety of reasons I mentioned previously.

2) I'm not surprised at all about the outcome.  The plaintiffs chose that forum because they knew they'd get a liberal judge who would try to bend things to make it fit their arguments.  Quite frankly, the plaintiffs have much better lawyers than Prop 8 supporters.  It's disappointing that the AG and Governor refused to defend Prop 8 because they personally disagreed with it, even though they have a legal obligation to defend the people's decision and the accompanying passage of law.  Therefore, defense of Prop 8 was left to a third party rather than who it should have been.  Also, it's not surprising because the judge is a very liberal judge who is also gay.

3) The points you guys make above don't really hit the mark, I don't think.  The key point is this:  marriage as it has been defined in our society since its inception (one man/one woman) has been implemented because it recognizes an ideal state that the society wants to promote (monogamy, raising children with both parents, etc.)

The problem is that gay marriage fails to meet the things marriage is meant to promote (can't have children, can't raise them with a mother and a father).  It also promotes a sexual relationship our society does not think should be celebrated by redefining marriage (sodomy, etc.).  Since marriage is "promotion" of a certain relationship (and the sexual acts that go along with it), the people have a right to determine what it does not want to promote.

In other words, marriage is a very special law of promotion.  Homosexuals are already protected to act how they want; they have every freedom everyone else has.  (They even have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex.)  However, they don't meet the ideal that our society wants to promote.  Calling it equal protection without rational basis is demonstrative of a misunderstanding of why our society recognizes and promotes marriage in the first place.

If this is expanded, then people who claim to have sexual urges for many partners will claim equal protection for all sorts of communal marriages; people wanting to marry family members will demand equal protection; and the list goes on.  Why? Because people fail to understand that marriage is the promotion of the society's ideal, based on what society has said (in this case, through two separate elections overturned by rogue judges).

Though by your own words of what society wants marriage to promote, they are perfectly capable, and in fact succeed:



Both of these ideals are promoted by marriage both heterosexual and homosexual; the only thing that homosexual partners are unable to do is have children with each other, which is something even some heterosexual couples are incapable of.  They are still capable of raising children with both parents.


 

I hardly think that society thinks ill of sodomy, at least once they realize that a BJ is considered sodomy, and the more well-known form of sodomy also applies to heterosexual couples as well.

The argument seems to be that...society shouldn't legalize gay marriage because...society doesn't want to?

Frankly, it appears as if society is changing its mind.  But even if it wasn't, the opinion of society is not the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional, or else we'd still have racial segregation in some states.

and my point is that this argument is false, and specious. Marriage as it has been defined in our society is a lot longer history that marriage as it has been defined by our government, and it has not always been one man one woman- through most of history and cultures it was one man and numerous women. The definition in our current civilization has changed radically in teh past 30 years, and teh primary point 250 years ago of it being one man and one woman had more to do with the woman being property with slightly more rights than a slave, another institution which dates back to teh fonding of this country and which has been disbanded. As the judge said, just because that's the way it has been is not an argument for keeping it that way.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14650663 Domestic violence among homosexual partners

And yet from links on that same web site:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11574335


and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15261641


now last time I checked 1/3 was larger than 1/4 and 12% larger than 10%

That's your opinion, and one that is wrong for many reasons that others mentioned previously.  ;)  Saying you made an argument earlier doesn't really help if people didn't agree with it the first time.


I'm pretty sure the plaintiffs (and perhaps more importantly, their lawyers) have every expectation and intention of this case going to the supreme court.


If they think a law is unconstitutional, they shouldn't defend it.  I don't know the law well enough to say if they're still required to defend in that case, but if that is the law, it's a ridiculous law.  Also, remember that Arnie vetoed a law that would have legalized gay marriage in CA, so it's not exactly like he's been a huge gay marriage supporter or something.


Raising children with a mother and father isn't a goal unto itself, it's a means to the end of getting successful, well-adjust children.  And no one has offered any evidence here that two gay parents are statistically worse parents than two straight parents.  Over and over people have cited studies that compare single straight parents to married straight parents, and shown that two parents are better than one, but no one has shown any study that indicates that two gay parents are just as good (statistically) as two straight parents.  In fact, some people have pointed to studies that show that two gay parents are just as good.


Did the people have a right to determine what they wanted to promote in the case of interracial marriage?  (NOTE--This is a real question that I'd like to see answered, not avoided.)  If "the people" of a state don't want to promote a sexual relationship they don't think should be celebrated, and that sexual relationship is one between people with different skin color, do the people have the right to ban interracial marriage?  Did the courts overstep when they overturned interracial marriage laws?  (Again, I would like these questions answered, not side-stepped.  Tell me why you think the situation is different if you like, but please do give answers to the questions).


Is the following statement a legit counter to the rulings on interracial marriage:  "In other words, marriage is a very special law of promotion.  Interracial couples are already protected to act how they want; they have every freedom everyone else has.  (They even have the freedom to marry someone of the same race.)  However, they don't meet the ideal that our society wants to promote.  Calling it equal protection without rational basis is demonstrative of a misunderstanding of why our society recognizes and promotes marriage in the first place." If not, please explain why society can decide it doesn't want to "promote" gay relationships, but can't decide that it doesn't want to "promote" interracial relationships?  Why is one form of disapproval allowable, but the other not?


No, we'll just run them off to Utah. ;)


And what you seem to fail to understand is that certain "ideals" that society (or portions of it) has are unconstitutional.  Parts of society (and majorities in certain states) though that interracial marriage was wrong, but they didn't get to make the call.

Also, since I assume you're aware that society is becoming more and more accepting of gay marriage as time goes by, will you say that you think gay marriage should be legal when a majority of people support it?  Will you say now that you think the public's opinion is the only thing that should matter, when it seems likely that a majority of the public will support gay marriage before too much longer?

If a law is a special case in that it promotes the moral view of the majority then that law is unconstitutional as being a proponent of a religious ideal. Which was exactly the ruling on proposition 8, saying that marriage is a special case would, if applied, simply expand the scope of the ruling.
Lets not forget that Colorado already took amendment 2 to the supreme court back in 1992, where it was declared unconstitutional, 6-3, on the basis that it denied access to sought to make them unequal to everyone else. Lawrence V. Texas held that states could not discriminate between staright and homosexual sex in their laws regarding sodomy. This is stare decisis, and anyone looking to make gay marriage a national right will be itching to get proposition 8 to the supreme court, since the odds of them ruling in it's favor are miniscule, and a decision that it is unconstitutional will essentially state that every state by extention must have legal gay marriage.
In the long run proposition 8 may be the best thing to happen to the gay rights movement, since it gave thema legal basis to take the issue to the supreme court in a position of having to defend their rights.

After reading the court transcript...damn.  Seriously, to NOT judge the way Walker did would have been biased, they literally had no case in some points; unable to provide evidence, unable to back up their claims, how could you judge in favor of them?

The people quoted in the media as saying that the judge had some bias have a bias in saying so; either they haven't read the court transcripts, or they're bitter bigots (and given that among them is Pat Robertson, I'm leaning towards the latter).

Tycho or katisara should close this thread and reopen a new one.  It is approaching the 1000 post limit which will make it hard to archive.

--

I think those opposing me have a misguided view of how morality plays into our society.  We discriminate all the time on moral issues -- polygamy, incest, necrophilia, robbery, tax evasion.  Every single one of our laws is based on some moral value.  The key is not pointing out that it's not the moral view of EVERYBODY.  The key is demonstrating it violates their rights.

For example, interracial marriage was based on race, which is something that someone cannot help and which does not progress the moral view of marriage.  Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is based on whether society should encourage homosexual sex and actions, not on whether someone is homosexual.

For example, heterosexuals typically have the drive to mate with multiple partners, but society has determined that monogamy is the standard it wants to promote.  Pedophiles would say they have certain urges, as do those who want to practice beastiality.  We regulate these moral acts because of the morals of society.  Here, California spoke out about its moral preference (and there are many, many reasons for that, which we don't need to rehash now).  A single liberal judge decided to overrule the majority of Californians based on an untested theory and change the Constitution.  That's very bothersome.

To the point, though, everything in life is discriminatory.  The key is whether it has a rational basis for discrimination.  Discrimination is not a bad word.  In fact, it comes a from a positive derivation (one of "discriminating tastes").  It just has a bad connotation in the public these days.  So we need to look at underlying reasons.

What's funny is that even Obama, liberal as he is, is against gay marriage, as are many democrats.  This becomes an imposition of gay morality on the majority of society, not vice versa.  The license of marriage is different from the fundamental rights.  Homosexuals have every right that everyone else has--even more, to be truthful.  They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like anyone else, and they get special protections in the law against discrimination that heterosexuals don't receive.  This whole thing is a shame issue based on a political agenda to manipulate morality of the masses.

I also don't like that this is being portrayed as a religious ideal.  That's patently false.  Some may vote on morality based on their moral background, and some may want to blame people for making it religious, but ultimately the issue is not religious.  Rather, it is based on moral actions that our society either approves of or disapproves of.

Silveroak's understanding of stare decisis is flawed.  Those laws he cites to were based on criminal activity, not a status that the state is promoting. Marriage is a special status license, not a criminal law.

I'm trying to avoid restating the same things.  I tire of this conversation when people say the same demonstrably false things and think that repeating them will make them true.

Oh, yes.  That's why they want to get a liberal judge at the outset because on appeal, the appellate courts can only look at the record that has been created in the lower court and the lower court's decision.  This way, they make sure everything is framed on appeal in a way that's in their best interest.  We do this all the time.


The elected leaders have the obligation to follow the will of the people who elected them.  Brown is a liberal lawyer but has no authority to determine if it is constitutional or not, and Arnold is not.  Their opinion is actually irrelevant.

A ridiculous law?  The same law that is in effect in over 9/10ths of the states and the vast majority of people agree with?  Well, I guess that shows us your bias more than anything.  Maybe you disagree, but "ridiculous" is a loaded term.


The point is that it's the ideal that marriage is supposed to support and foster.  It's the primary reason for society to recognize marriage.


We've posted it in the past, back as far as when rogue was here.  We've also shown the higher rate of divorce/separation among the homosexual community, leaving more children with broken homes.  They also tend to have more outside partners come into the relationship (7 on average, even if they are "married").  We've also shown that homosexuals can't actually procreate with each other to begin with and therefore don't promote the system anyway.

The idea is that homosexual marriage not only has its own internal problems; it also dilutes the important ideals of marriage itself, and therefore hurts marriage for heterosexual generations to come who will avoid marriage and therefore avoid the benefits of marriage, and the benefits to their children.


Interracial marriage was based on race, not sexual activities.  It was not based on choosing sodomy or dangerous sexual practices for example.  You are trying to compare someone's race to societally condoned moral actions. The two are not compatible comparisons.


If interracial marriage could only be conducted through sodomy or perversions of the sex act like homosexual marriage, then they might be similar.  But they are not.

Colin Powell put it well:  "Unlike race or gender, sexuality is not a benign trait. It is manifested by behaviour. While it would be decidedly biased to assume certain behaviours based on gender or membership in a particular racial group, the same is not true for sexuality."

Look at other potential issues:  Will we have to eliminate girls/boys bathrooms?  Will we have to eliminate having women guards at women prisons?  We have these discriminations every day; they are based on valid societal moral concerns.


You are wrong.  First, "ideals" are not unconstitutional unless they are forced on someone.  No one is forcing homosexuals to get married.  As such, there is no negative discrimination against them.  It is positive discrimination, disallowing them to partake in marriage unless they follow the same rules of marriage as everyone else.  They want to change the definition so they can participate in marriage in a new way that is contrary to our tradition and societal morality.

I think you fail to understand the basic premise.  Ideals are not unconstitutional.  Pushing them down someone's throat can be.  Homosexuals pushing gay marriage down other's throats because that is their "ideal" may be just as unconstitutional if enacted into law.

You keep comparing apples and oranges.  Yes, that was wrong.  It was not actually unconstitutional but a violation of Title VII rights, as I recall, unless they were able to demonstrate equal protection.

The point you keep glossing over is that there needs to be a rational reason for it.  Once it was shown there is no rational reason (actually, for race it's a "compelling reason"), then it is not constitutional.  There are many, many rational reasons for not redefining marriage and encouraging sodomy.


If they successfully voted that marriage should be redefined, then I think society should recognize it.  However, that wouldn't change my personal views, and I would tend to think that would be the result of the public being sold on a false agenda that this is discrimination based on homosexuality instead of the granting of a special status on those who want to engage in homosexual sex.


See above.  Our society and moral values are going downhill, that's for sure.  However, because marriage is a special status granted by a societal basis in morality, I would not claim it is unconstitutional if society wanted it that way.  It would just be a sad commentary on the loss of traditional morality and the traditional family, and I would be fearful for its affect on my future generations as the idea of marriage gets more and more diluted until it is a meaningless distinction.