| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2008 09:02:48 PM · #951 |
Excerpts from various sources... with some practices that I find personally distasteful, just to be clear...
General overview:
- One of the recurring clichés of the same-sex marriage debate is that the very notion of such a thing is a radical departure from anything entertained before in human history. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. In many cultures and in many eras, the issue has emerged-and the themes of the arguments are quirkily similar. Same-sex love, as Plato's Symposium shows, is as ancient as human love, and the question of how it is recognized and understood has bedeviled every human civilization. In most, it has never taken the form of the modern institution of marriage, but in some, surprisingly, it has. In seventeenth-century China and nineteenth-century Africa, for example, the institution seems identical to opposite-sex marriage.
- Similar same-sex patterns in "marriages" have been noted in Egypt and among the Swahili people of the East African corridor. Among African Disaporic tribes there is Papua New Guinea, while not necessarily marriage, adolescent males must spend time with older males as a prerequisite to manhood.
(eww!)
Example one, Rome:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Nevermind. I found it. He probably banned both, but he does mention "those men who marry men as if they were women." |
Thanks!
Example two, China:
- China's long literary tradition offers many elegant references to socially accepted gay and lesbian relationships among the ruling class. Indeed, some of those legendary romances are still referenced in contemporary language used to describe homosexuality.
- Hu Pu'an records the phenomenon of two-women commitment ceremonies in "A Record of China's Customs: Guangdong": Within the Golden Orchid women's societies, if two women "have intentions" towards each other, one of them would prepare peanut candy, dates and other goods as a formal gift to show her intent. If the other woman accepts the gift, she is now bound by honor to her suitor. If she refuses the gift, it indicates a rejection of the proposal. A contract-signing ceremony follows the acceptance and is usually attended by a group of friends who celebrate by drinking through the night. After the contract is completed, the two women "become like each other's shadows in sitting, lying down, rising, and living". If one party breaks the oath, the group of women will hold her accountable and subject her to "a hundred humiliations", "for such is their custom".
In the neighboring province of Fujian, same-sex marriages between males were also recognized. Ming dynasty literati Shen Defu writes in "Miscellaneous musings from the Humble Broom Book Room" (Bizhouzhai Yutan):
The Fujianese take male-on-male passion very seriously. Men from all strata of society form partnerships within their own social classes. The older man is the "sworn older brother", and the younger man is the "sworn younger brother". When the "older brother" goes to the home of his "younger brother", the parents of the "younger brother" treat him like a son-in-law. From henceforth, any living costs or heterosexual marriage expenses of the "younger brother" will be paid by the "older brother". Those who love each other ... also sleep together as spouses.
Similar to the Zande model in Central Africa, Fujian boy-marriages involved a man paying bridewealth to a teenage boy's parents, and the union typically ended when the boy came of age, though there were exceptions. Sometimes same-sex couples adopted and raised children.
Example three, Africa:
- Woman-woman marriage has been documented in more than 30 African populations, including the Yoruba and Ibo of West Africa, the Nuer of Sudan, the Lovedu, Zulu and Sotho of South Africa, and the Kikuyu and Nandi of East Africa. Typically, such arrangements involved two women undergoing formal marriage rites; the requisite bride price is paid by one party as in a heterosexual marriage. The woman who pays the bride price for the other woman becomes the sociological 'husband'. The couple may have children with the help of a 'sperm donor', who is a male kinsman or friend of the female husband, or a man of the wife's own choosing, depending on the customs of the community. The female husband is the sociological father of any resulting offspring. The children belong to her lineage, not to their biological father's.
- ...Yoruba society, which allows, for example, for people of same sex entering in a social relationship as oko and obinrin (with or without sexual implications).
- The following text presents more anthropological and ethnographic data on the Zande warrior class in Zaire and their propensity to engage in same gender intergenerational behavior. The quotes below is taken from Sexual Inversion Among the Azande (1970) by E.E. Evans-Pritchard:
Many of the young warriors married boys and a commander might have more than one boy-wife. When a warrior married a boy, he paid spears, though only a few, to the boy's parents as he would have done had he married their daughter. He gave the boy pretty ornaments; and he and the boy addressed one another as badiare, "my love" and "my lover. These boys and young males/men maintained their male identities during marriage to older males in the community. Outside sexual relations, typical duties involved getting water for the husband, collecting firewood to kindled fire, and carrying the husband's warrior shield when traveling. At some prescribed time during the the same gender intergenerational marriage, the young male, if possible or desired, would be freed to enter into marriage with a female. His husband paid the bride price for the female. Some new husbands subsequently took boy-wives and young male-wives of their own while married to the female(s). Moreover, many openly preferred the company of the boy/young male-wives to that of their wives.
(ewwwww!!!)
Example four, North America:
- Many indigenous societies in the Americas supported alternative gender roles for both biological men and women. These identities have been termed 3rd and 4th genders (though some cultures recognized up to 6 genders) and are usually coupled with supernatural powers and shamanistic roles. These gender-bending social roles sometimes begin in childhood preferences for dress and work roles. Among the Mohave, men have married alyha (biological males who are officially initiated into a 'female' gender role) and women have married hwame (the female equivalent of alyha).
- Many societies have traditions of recognizing and supporting families outside of the heterosexual/child-rearing model. The important role of the berdache in many Native American nations provides a useful example. Berdache typically were men who dressed as and performed the roles of women but also acted as healers and spiritual leaders, integral to everything from childrearing to mediating disputes between tribal members. Berdache often entered into marriages with other men in the tribe and sometimes with female warriors who had 'proven' to be men through their fighting skills. Several tribes also recognized women who filled similar gender-bending roles. In all eases, a berdache was a valued and important member of the tribe, contributing greatly to its success and ability to survive.
- Where monogamy - just one spouse - is the norm, there are nevertheless examples of marriage between two people of the same biological sex: two men or two women. This is the case in many Native American societies that recognize a third gender, the berdache, who is anatomically male but spiritually neither male nor female. A berdache may live with a man, fulfilling the role of wife.
SUCCESS!!!
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 22:11:20. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 10:04:41 PM · #952 |
P.S. Did you notice that we covered Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America?
Seems like gay marriage has been a global phenomenon for a while now!
It's too bad this will probably get drowned in a bunch of new posts now that DrAchoo is taking a break.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 22:09:55. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 10:28:50 PM · #953 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
First, I'm not sure what I'm being accused of being ignorant about. I've been called lots of things in my life, but ignorant is rarely one of them. |
You've been professing an ignorance of the right-wing strategy to marginalize homosexuality with "marriage between a man and a woman" laws. You've been treating these laws as if they're harmless attempts by philologists to define a word properly. That is the ignorance of which I speak. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 11:03:33 PM · #954 |
All of this wrangling seems rather ridiculous in regard to the actual matters at hand. The bare fact of the matter is that in this day and age there are countries which accept gay marriage. Canada for instance. Who cares what ancient tribes or civilizations did or did not do? Here in the United States the idea of government sanctioned gay marriages is relatively new. That's really all that matters.
In the one post where the little girl may be forced to grow up thinking her family is unaccepted by society i would have to say that this is a true fact and perhaps it shouldn't be shielded from her completely. She will learn it the hard way unless she is taught the truth of the matter at home. The legality of gay marriage is not going to instantly change this. She needs to understand that there are many who will not be nice to her family or accept her family so that she can learn to cope with the reality of the situation.
I will never agree or think that homosexual sex is okay but I have to admit that I would rather have gay marriages than to see innocent children suffer. I can feel the hurt in the words of those who are affected by this prop 8 matter and it burdens my heart. It's not right to give rights and then take them away.
I don't like the hate that is being generated from both sides of this issue. It's disturbing. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 11:39:48 PM · #955 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. Emperor Constantine banned it... |
How ironic, that the freshly minted Christian Constantine would declare universal tolerance for religion out of one side of his mouth (thus paving the way for making Christianity Rome's state religion) whilst outlawing same sex marriage out the other. Seems there's more than one dead emperor that has some 'splaining to do. (It's worth noting that Constantine's conversion came as a result of winning a bloody battle in the name of Jesus.) |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 03:14:51 AM · #956 |
Got logged out while in this thread and had the great privilege of seeing the Google ads. They really do target their ads, don't they?
Are Gays Going to Hell?
Is anyone? Dead Sea Scrolls from Cave 4 reveal surprise about hell.
www.TheJeromeConspiracy.com
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 03:15:04. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 09:34:10 AM · #957 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The analogy is sorta strange. The point I'm trying to make is that we can find examples of things where some parameters can change but others cannot without changing the definition of the thing. Squares can be bigger or smaller and still be squares, but the thing that is its essential "squareness" is having "four equal sides" (actually I'd guess you'd need to add "four right angles"). I'm contending that marriages have changed over the years. Sometimes polygamy is accepted, sometimes not. Sometimes interracial marriages are accepted, sometimes not. But historically the thing that is essential to "marriageness" (to coin a word) is having "opposite genders involved". The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
the problem here is that you are falling into a language trap. The only thing that 'square' has in relation to 'shape with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles' is that we, as a group, have agreed that that is what 'square' means. If tomorrow, you wake up and the group has decided (without your knowing) that a 'square' is 'a fish with wings,' when you proclaim, "My house is a square!" people will make fun of you.
My point here is that words are not tied to their definitions except by group consensus. 50 years ago, 'gay' meant something different than it does today. The sentence: My brother is gay, 50 years ago meant: My brother is 'very happy.' Today, it can also mean: My brother is 'homosexual.' And probably typically means the latter unless you are talking to an 85 year old.
Language evolves just as people do; it is not static. While the concept of 'squareness' will always remain the same ('having four equal sides and four right angles'), the word to denote it is not required to. Additionally, a word can remain in common usage, such as 'gay' or 'bad,' but what it denotes can change, sometimes even within the same sentence.
It is irrelevant what 'marriage' meant at any previous point in time. What is relevant is how we chose to define it as a group today.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2008 09:57:36 AM · #958 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The analogy is sorta strange. The point I'm trying to make is that we can find examples of things where some parameters can change but others cannot without changing the definition of the thing. Squares can be bigger or smaller and still be squares, but the thing that is its essential "squareness" is having "four equal sides" (actually I'd guess you'd need to add "four right angles"). I'm contending that marriages have changed over the years. Sometimes polygamy is accepted, sometimes not. Sometimes interracial marriages are accepted, sometimes not. But historically the thing that is essential to "marriageness" (to coin a word) is having "opposite genders involved". The idea that marriage can just involve men or just involve women is new. |
Originally posted by dahkota:
the problem here is that you are falling into a language trap. The only thing that 'square' has in relation to 'shape with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles' is that we, as a group, have agreed that that is what 'square' means. If tomorrow, you wake up and the group has decided (without your knowing) that a 'square' is 'a fish with wings,' when you proclaim, "My house is a square!" people will make fun of you.
My point here is that words are not tied to their definitions except by group consensus. 50 years ago, 'gay' meant something different than it does today. The sentence: My brother is gay, 50 years ago meant: My brother is 'very happy.' Today, it can also mean: My brother is 'homosexual.' And probably typically means the latter unless you are talking to an 85 year old.
Language evolves just as people do; it is not static. While the concept of 'squareness' will always remain the same ('having four equal sides and four right angles'), the word to denote it is not required to. Additionally, a word can remain in common usage, such as 'gay' or 'bad,' but what it denotes can change, sometimes even within the same sentence.
It is irrelevant what 'marriage' meant at any previous point in time. What is relevant is how we chose to define it as a group today. |
Jason, forgive my taking this liberty as I have the utmost respect for your views and opinions even if I don't always see eye to eye with you.
But I cannot resist the urge to point out that to some, your views on this subject may appear to be "square".
Sort of agreeing with Courtenay here as you can see.....8>)
|
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:13:34 AM · #959 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The sentence: My brother is gay, 50 years ago meant: My brother is 'very happy.' Today, it can also mean: My brother is 'homosexual.' And probably typically means the latter unless you are talking to an 85 year old. |
How many 85 year olds are wondering why people are so darn intent on banning 'very happy marriage' as an affront to their morality? ;-)
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 10:14:06. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:27:35 AM · #960 |
This is likely one of the better posts by either side of the issue.
Originally posted by dponlyme:
All of this wrangling seems rather ridiculous in regard to the actual matters at hand. The bare fact of the matter is that in this day and age there are countries which accept gay marriage. Canada for instance. Who cares what ancient tribes or civilizations did or did not do? Here in the United States the idea of government sanctioned gay marriages is relatively new. That's really all that matters.
In the one post where the little girl may be forced to grow up thinking her family is unaccepted by society i would have to say that this is a true fact and perhaps it shouldn't be shielded from her completely. She will learn it the hard way unless she is taught the truth of the matter at home. The legality of gay marriage is not going to instantly change this. She needs to understand that there are many who will not be nice to her family or accept her family so that she can learn to cope with the reality of the situation.
I will never agree or think that homosexual sex is okay but I have to admit that I would rather have gay marriages than to see innocent children suffer. I can feel the hurt in the words of those who are affected by this prop 8 matter and it burdens my heart. It's not right to give rights and then take them away.
I don't like the hate that is being generated from both sides of this issue. It's disturbing. |
|
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:35:06 AM · #961 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dahkota:
The sentence: My brother is gay, 50 years ago meant: My brother is 'very happy.' Today, it can also mean: My brother is 'homosexual.' And probably typically means the latter unless you are talking to an 85 year old. |
How many 85 year olds are wondering why people are so darn intent on banning 'very happy marriage' as an affront to their morality? ;-) |
probably the same number that is trying to figure out why their grandchildren laugh when they:
"cut the cheese"
"put junk in their trunk"
"eat a fish taco"
|
|
|
|
11/15/2008 11:26:50 AM · #962 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
the problem here is that you are falling into a language trap. The only thing that 'square' has in relation to 'shape with 4 equal sides and 4 right angles' is that we, as a group, have agreed that that is what 'square' means. If tomorrow, you wake up and the group has decided (without your knowing) that a 'square' is 'a fish with wings,' when you proclaim, "My house is a square!" people will make fun of you. |
...or not, because it could still mean both things!
It's hip to be square!
Three squares a day and you'll eat well.
The decidedly L-shaped tool I own... a square.
It sure looks like a square ain't always four equals, even when specifically discussing geometry or shape:
- (Abbr. Sq.) An open, usually four-sided area at the intersection of two or more streets, often planted with grass and trees for use as a park.
- A rectangular space enclosed by streets and occupied by buildings; a block.
- Approximately rectangular and equilateral in cross section: a square house.
I'm just tossing this out into the public square, perhaps 'square' is actually the perfect analogy, and that's square with me.
Off to enjoy the wonderful marriage of milk and cereal that is breakfast, before joining in some NATIONWIDE PROTEST two hours from now!
|
|
|
|
11/15/2008 08:35:12 PM · #963 |
| Well, where are the pictures? |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 08:44:20 PM · #964 |
How about calculus as it relates to gay marriage?
The derivative of x squared is 2x. so two guys who are x*x can finally be 2x. Together instead of apart... oh well I thought it was kind of clever.
maybe it's integral... been a long time since calculus class.
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 20:45:42. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:25:15 PM · #965 |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 07:44:57 AM · #966 |
Here are the pictures!
I have a ton more on Flickr, but these are the good ones. What do you think, is my voice activated lighting stand (Eric holding a flash, he's so sweet) working out? :)
Message edited by author 2008-11-17 20:47:06. |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 09:52:42 AM · #967 |
Great pictures Mousie. I particularly like the one with the little boy. That just says it all.
I remember my mother being horrified when one of her best friend's son came out of the closet. Eventually she met his partner, a really wonderful guy, and that helped mitigate the prejudice somewhat. She was horrified again when we learned they were planning to adopt a child (which they had to relocate to do), but now, many years later, there's no denying that these guys have been great and loving parents. I think for my mother that may be the most significant thing that has altered her view of gay relationships, seeing a gay couple do a better job of raising a child than many heterosexual parents. |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 12:08:32 PM · #968 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Great pictures Mousie. I particularly like the one with the little boy. That just says it all.
I remember my mother being horrified when one of her best friend's son came out of the closet. Eventually she met his partner, a really wonderful guy, and that helped mitigate the prejudice somewhat. She was horrified again when we learned they were planning to adopt a child (which they had to relocate to do), but now, many years later, there's no denying that these guys have been great and loving parents. I think for my mother that may be the most significant thing that has altered her view of gay relationships, seeing a gay couple do a better job of raising a child than many heterosexual parents. |
You would think it would be obvious that parenting skills have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. What is the worst that can happen by gay people raising a child... the child turns out to be a maniacal serial killer... just like hetero parents. At best maybe the child will grow up to respect all people regardless of differences. I'm sure there are bad gay parents as well but I don't see hetero parents having a stranglehold on good parenting. I see nothing wrong with gay people raising a child who would otherwise not have parents. I don't agree with sperm donors for lesbians (or hetero women for that matter)but that is another thing altogether. To me you should not birth someones child that you are not married to regardless of your sexual orientation. I know most people won't agree with me on that and that's fine. It's just my personal opinion. |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 12:37:36 PM · #969 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
To me you should not birth someones child that you are not married to regardless of your sexual orientation. I know most people won't agree with me on that and that's fine. It's just my personal opinion. |
I find very strange the amount of emphasis you place on birth, as if that has anything to do with, well, anything. And what marriage has to do with birth also eludes me. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm saying I don't understand your point, or at least the point you are trying to make here.
It would seem to me you are an advocate for abortion, are anti-adoption, and against sperm donation, egg donation, surrogate parenthood... Is that correct? |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 01:19:10 PM · #970 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You would think it would be obvious that parenting skills have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. |
Obvious to who? I don't believe for a moment that this is obvious to most people in my mother's generation (people born in the 30's). Also, several states' supreme courts have ruled against gay marriage with part of the argument being that children raised by same-sex couples would be harmed. Of course, the funny thing is that research has been demonstrating no real harm. In fact, children of same sex couples seem to have a slight advantage, probably due to the fact that it's highly unlikely for same-sex couples to have children they don't want or didn't plan for.
Still, you have to remember that there is a significant part of society that has little or no experience with homosexuality aside from the prejudices most of the older generations grew up with and what people have seen from movies and wild parades that might give them the idea that it is simply a depraved lifestyle. My point was just that it helps for people to know same-sex couples in person to change their view and it has an even more dramatic impact when people see great same-sex parenting in person.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2008 01:36:42 PM · #971 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You would think it would be obvious that parenting skills have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. |
I don't think "parenting skills" is the issue... As Jmart pointed out, a LOT of people think that to be gay means to engage in the sort of licentious, outrageous, stereotyped behavior that gets the most media attention. So of course, kids raised in that sort of environment are being raised inappropriately, right? (sarcasm alert)
Then there's also the issue that, if I think to be gay is an abomination, a sin, whatever, then I'd probably also think that a kid raised in a "gay family" would be more likely to "become" gay, so in a sense this would be "their" way of perpetuating themselves, right? (sarcasm alert again)
In other words, imagine legions of gay parents adopting kids for the express purpose of indoctrinating them into homosexuality and increasing the gay population until it swamps us all, and you have the darkest fear of the screaming homophobe...
R. |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 01:45:27 PM · #972 |
LOL! As I read the last part of that, Robert, I thought it would make an excellent "B" film.... :-)
And Mousie, your voice-activated flash is working very nicely! |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 03:44:10 PM · #973 |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 05:27:29 PM · #974 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
To me you should not birth someones child that you are not married to regardless of your sexual orientation. I know most people won't agree with me on that and that's fine. It's just my personal opinion. |
I find very strange the amount of emphasis you place on birth, as if that has anything to do with, well, anything. And what marriage has to do with birth also eludes me. I'm not saying I don't agree with you, I'm saying I don't understand your point, or at least the point you are trying to make here.
It would seem to me you are an advocate for abortion, are anti-adoption, and against sperm donation, egg donation, surrogate parenthood... Is that correct? |
I just don't think you should be accepting someone else's bodily fluids into yourself unless you are married (or receiving a blood transfusion).
Marriage should have something to do with birth. The Marriage of a man and a woman, in my opinion, should be the only way a woman should become pregnant in the first place. Now I know that is far from the reality of the situation we have both now and even in days past but that is the way that it was meant to be.
I don't think I am advocating abortion or am being against adoption in making that statement. I personally don't agree with sperm or egg donation or surrogate mothers. I don't begrudge others these things as they see fit (abortion either for that matter) but it is not something I would ever consent to in order to have children (or get rid of them).
I don't even know if I had a point in writing what I did. Just more thinking out loud so to speak. I guess I'm really just trying to draw a line somewhere that I feel should not be crossed. I certainly don't feel any laws should be proposed based on my opinions. I welcome any challenge to my opinions if done in a thoughtful, respectful way. I certainly am not above changing my mind. I think I've come a long way toward acceptance of gay marriage as a result of reading posts on this site. wouldn't say I'm all the way there but I am thinking about it in a different light. |
|
|
|
11/16/2008 05:36:31 PM · #975 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You would think it would be obvious that parenting skills have nothing to do with your sexual orientation. |
I don't think "parenting skills" is the issue... As Jmart pointed out, a LOT of people think that to be gay means to engage in the sort of licentious, outrageous, stereotyped behavior that gets the most media attention. So of course, kids raised in that sort of environment are being raised inappropriately, right? (sarcasm alert)
Then there's also the issue that, if I think to be gay is an abomination, a sin, whatever, then I'd probably also think that a kid raised in a "gay family" would be more likely to "become" gay, so in a sense this would be "their" way of perpetuating themselves, right? (sarcasm alert again)
In other words, imagine legions of gay parents adopting kids for the express purpose of indoctrinating them into homosexuality and increasing the gay population until it swamps us all, and you have the darkest fear of the screaming homophobe...
R. |
I guess having known gay people quite well I don't worry about their ability to raise a child or be a good parent... any more than anybody else anyway. I'm sure there are completely deviant gay people as well as there are heteros but I know that being gay is not the deciding characteristic that determines you are not a basically good and decent person. Seems obvious to me. I guess not so much to others.
edit to add: It would be the same thing as saying I would not be a suitable parent because I might expose my children to my own sinfulness and teach them the same. My own sinfulness is not an issue and neither should a gay person's. So long as you are not mistreating or neglecting the child as a result of your personal sin it should not be an issue.
Message edited by author 2008-11-16 17:42:39. |
|
