"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[polymath257]

---

Just wow.

Yes, in fact, it *is* a legal institution. There have been rules and regulations surrounding marriage for as long as we have records. That is hardly just the last 5 minutes.

For that matter, I'd like to see your evidence concerning the nature of marriage, say, 7000 years ago. Any evidence at all?

And, in a *secular* society, the *legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*. This is why there are tax benefits, survivor benefits, ability to make decisions, etc.

Anything *other* than the *legal* aspect is fluff and I really don't care about it. What I care about is equal treatment under the law: that means that *every* couple who wishes to marry can legally do so with *exactly* the same rules and responsibilities.

Answer this question: are there times or places that didn't/don't require a government marriage license to get married (or even better--no government)? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then marriage is not a legal institution. To think that the "*legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*" well...I feel sorry for you. There are like a thousand intrinsic reason to get married and maybe 3 legal reasons. 

BTW, the "legal" aspects you brought up are separate laws (tax, insurance, privacy laws--not 'marriage laws') codifying ancient aspects of marriage.

Whether a license was required or not, *some* sort of official ceremony has always been required. That is the action of the government (or church, which is the same thing here). The piece of paper isn't the point: it is the societal and legal approval of the bond and the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

Before 'romantic love' became the paradigm, marriage was primarily an economic agreement. As such, it was a concern of government, which required its acknowledgement.

I believe a prior post showed there are over a thousand reasons to get married because of legal aspects of US law. There are many *legal* benefits, rights, and responsibilities that come with the designation of 'marriage'. In my own case, insurance benefits were a crucial reason we decided to let the government know of our commitment to each other.

I'm curious what you think the 'thousands' of intrinsic reasons are to get married that limit it to being only between people of opposite genders. Seriously, why that restriction? Because of tradition? Sorry, but that is just about the worst reason to keep a discriminatory practice going.

Even *if* your 10,000 year figure was accurate (and it is very far from being so), it would still be a poor argument for not changing to a better system that is more equal.

[Angrboda]

Anthropologists describe marriage as originally being a social ritual aimed at alerting people to the change in sexual availability of two people within a community, with the obvious function of securing patrilineage of the offspring for the male and ensuring the profit of his genetic material. I think that's a reasonable explanation, just as sure as I am that it's not relevant to how marriage functions today.

[Amarok]

Anthropologists describe marriage as originally being a social ritual aimed at alerting people to the change in sexual availability of two people within a community, with the obvious function of securing patrilineage of the offspring for the male and ensuring the profit of his genetic material.  I think that's a reasonable explanation, just as sure as I am that it's not relevant to how marriage functions today.

But often it's had a political function too and in most societies population control and distribution has been a government matter .

[SteveII]

---

Answer this question: are there times or places that didn't/don't require a government marriage license to get married (or even better--no government)? Yes or no? If you answer yes, then marriage is not a legal institution. To think that the "*legal* aspect is the *primary* aspect of marriage *as conducted by the government*" well...I feel sorry for you. There are like a thousand intrinsic reason to get married and maybe 3 legal reasons. 

BTW, the "legal" aspects you brought up are separate laws (tax, insurance, privacy laws--not 'marriage laws') codifying ancient aspects of marriage.

Whether a license was required or not, *some* sort of official ceremony has always been required. That is the action of the government (or church, which is the same thing here). The piece of paper isn't the point: it is the societal and legal approval of the bond and the rights and responsibilities that come with it.

I can't help myself...

Now you're moving the goal post. When I point out an example of marriage where there was no church or government, are you going to say the two families are now stand-ins the 'government'? Your premise is getting more and more ridiculous when pressed. 

Before 'romantic love' became the paradigm, marriage was primarily an economic agreement. As such, it was a concern of government, which required its acknowledgement.

This was really the one I wanted to press. Setting aside the fact that you have backpedaled to using the term 'concern of government' instead of a government institution--like you have been going on about, economic agreements are a concern of the government? Really? They require its acknowledgement? Really!?  The haulmark of the US experiment was limited government!

I believe a prior post showed there are over a thousand reasons to get married because of legal aspects of US law. There are many *legal* benefits, rights, and responsibilities that come with the designation of 'marriage'. In my own case, insurance benefits were a crucial reason we decided to let the government know of our commitment to each other.

There are a few legal reasons to get married. The rest of this is just your under-appreciation of marriage--which I imagine is exaggerated to preserve your point. But, maybe you did just get married for the insurance. 

I'm curious what you think the 'thousands' of intrinsic reasons are to get married that limit it to being only between people of opposite genders. Seriously, why that restriction? Because of tradition? Sorry, but that is just about the worst reason to keep a discriminatory practice going.

I said nothing of the kind nor can that conclusion be remotely arrived at by anything I said. Your premise is that getting married is for legal purposes. You continue to be wrong on several levels. You do realize that it seems you alone hold that opinion here, right?

[The Grand Nudger]

"I'm not saying anything in particular....except that teh gay is yucky!"

Go blow somebody Steve. Get it out of your system.

[Amarok]

I don't know how he thinks he's done well on this thread 

[polymath257]

There are a few legal reasons to get married. The rest of this is just your under-appreciation of marriage--which I imagine is exaggerated to preserve your point. But, maybe you did just get married for the insurance. 

I'm curious what you think the 'thousands' of intrinsic reasons are to get married that limit it to being only between people of opposite genders. Seriously, why that restriction? Because of tradition? Sorry, but that is just about the worst reason to keep a discriminatory practice going.

I said nothing of the kind nor can that conclusion be remotely arrived at by anything I said. Your premise is that getting married is for legal purposes. You continue to be wrong on several levels. You do realize that it seems you alone hold that opinion here, right?

Getting married is a *legal* act. That's the whole point.

Yes, my wife and I got married (told the government of our relationship) because my insurance was poor and hers was good. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't have done so (well, maybe eventually for survivor benefits). We were committed to each other. We had a house together, etc. But getting *married* was telling the government and getting the *legal* benefits it conveys.

Now, having a loving relationship *is* something quite apart from the legal aspects. But that isn't something that depends on gender either.

You mentioned *thousands* of benefits of being married that are separated from the legal. Since those seemed to be why you think gays can't be married, they must have *something* to do with gender.

So, what specifically is it about marriage that prevents a gay couple from being married? Something that *requires* having an opposite gendered couple to make it valid?

[Angrboda]

In Republican Rome, the poorly attested Lex Scantinia penalized an adult male for committing a sex crime (stuprum) against an underage male citizen (ingenuus). It is unclear whether the penalty was death or a fine. The law may also have been used to prosecute adult male citizens who willingly took a pathic role in same-sex acts, but prosecutions are rarely recorded and the provisions of the law are vague; as John Boswell has noted, "if there was a law against homosexual relations, no one in Cicero's day knew anything about it." When the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, all male homosexual activity was increasingly repressed, often on pain of death. In 342 CE, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. Shortly after, in the year 390 CE, emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. Emperor Justinian I (527–565 CE) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

Laws and codes prohibiting homosexual practice were in force in Europe from the fourth to the twentieth centuries, and Muslim countries have had similar laws from the beginnings of Islam in the seventh century up to and including the present day. Abbasid Baghdad, under the Caliph Al-Hadi (785–786 CE), punished homosexuality with death.

Wikipedia || Violence against LGBT people

As noted in another thread, the fact that same-sex marriages had to be explicitly outlawed seems to strongly suggest that same-sex marriages were in fact a reality at the time. The idea that they would make a law outlawing a practice that did not occur is absurd. And thus, Steve's contention that same-sex marriage does not exist in history would seem to be an exaggeration, at best.

This seems to put the lie to a good chunk of Steve's arguments, ancillary as they were to his supposed main point about the possibility of principled objection to same-sex marriage. That, if I recall, is still an outstanding question, namely, whether the divine sanction of anti-homosexual attitudes commutes the sentence of bigotry otherwise assigned. In that regard I'd note two things. First, the general lack of humility and even adherence to their own doctrines in the historical tendency of Christians to assume the role of God and attempt to enforce "His" wishes (really theirs) in history makes the distinction rather self-serving. A less pompous and arrogant faith might have led to a society in which LGBT people were tolerated and accepted, but just not condoned by believers themselves. But pluralism is foreign to Christianity, or to be precise, is foreign to Christians, and so intolerance becomes the norm, rather than the reverse. The other point is that it really doesn't matter whether the Christian attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage are principled or not, either presently or historically. The fact of the matter is that a lot of pain and death has been inflicted on people who were otherwise innocent. That pain and death was real, unlike a certain sky fairy whose existence is likely just a figment of believers' imaginations. So, I really could give a shit about any supposed principled objections and the imaginary shield to culpability that provides, the reality is that Christians have left their mark in this world as judgemental and intolerant bastards, in spite of the exhortations from their own religion to leave such things up to God.

[SteveII]

In Republican Rome, the poorly attested Lex Scantinia penalized an adult male for committing a sex crime (stuprum) against an underage male citizen (ingenuus). It is unclear whether the penalty was death or a fine. The law may also have been used to prosecute adult male citizens who willingly took a pathic role in same-sex acts, but prosecutions are rarely recorded and the provisions of the law are vague; as John Boswell has noted, "if there was a law against homosexual relations, no one in Cicero's day knew anything about it." When the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, all male homosexual activity was increasingly repressed, often on pain of death. In 342 CE, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal. Shortly after, in the year 390 CE, emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius I and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. Emperor Justinian I (527–565 CE) made homosexuals a scapegoat for problems such as "famines, earthquakes, and pestilences."

Laws and codes prohibiting homosexual practice were in force in Europe from the fourth to the twentieth centuries, and Muslim countries have had similar laws from the beginnings of Islam in the seventh century up to and including the present day. Abbasid Baghdad, under the Caliph Al-Hadi (785–786 CE), punished homosexuality with death.

Wikipedia || Violence against LGBT people

As noted in another thread, the fact that same-sex marriages had to be explicitly outlawed seems to strongly suggest that same-sex marriages were in fact a reality at the time.  The idea that they would make a law outlawing a practice that did not occur is absurd.  And thus, Steve's contention that same-sex marriage does not exist in history would seem to be an exaggeration, at best. 

Not at all. A law against it could also mean that some either tried it, proposed it, or heard of it and the powers that be employed the same reasoning I did to deny the change in definition. Without more information you are making a lot of unsupported inferences. For example, if the modern courts had upheld the traditional definition, you would never say that same sex marriages were part of the definition of marriage. You would be arguing in a circle. 

This seems to put the lie to a good chunk of Steve's arguments, ancillary as they were to his supposed main point about the possibility of principled objection to same-sex marriage.  That, if I recall, is still an outstanding question, namely, whether the divine sanction of anti-homosexual attitudes commutes the sentence of bigotry otherwise assigned.  In that regard I'd note two things.  First, the general lack of humility and even adherence to their own doctrines in the historical tendency of Christians to assume the role of God and attempt to enforce "His" wishes (really theirs) in history makes the distinction rather self-serving.  A less pompous and arrogant faith might have led to a society in which LGBT people were tolerated and accepted, but just not condoned by believers themselves.  But pluralism is foreign to Christianity, or to be precise, is foreign to Christians, and so intolerance becomes the norm, rather than the reverse.  The other point is that it really doesn't matter whether the Christian attitudes towards homosexuality and same-sex marriage are principled or not, either presently or historically.  The fact of the matter is that a lot of pain and death has been inflicted on people who were otherwise innocent.  That pain and death was real, unlike a certain sky fairy whose existence is likely just a figment of believers' imaginations.  So, I really could give a shit about any supposed principled objections and the imaginary shield to culpability that provides, the reality is that Christians have left their mark in this world as judgemental and intolerant bastards, in spite of the exhortations from their own religion to leave such things up to God.

The actual effects of a principled belief practiced in a decidedly unchristian manner is unfortunate and has resulted in terrible outcomes. But as you pointed out previously, most of these attitudes are not actually only principled beliefs. The purpose of my participation here was not to excuse bad behavior but to show that principled beliefs do not entail bad behavior. You are right to point out that distinction.

[Angrboda]

As noted in another thread, the fact that same-sex marriages had to be explicitly outlawed seems to strongly suggest that same-sex marriages were in fact a reality at the time.  The idea that they would make a law outlawing a practice that did not occur is absurd.  And thus, Steve's contention that same-sex marriage does not exist in history would seem to be an exaggeration, at best. 

Not at all. A law against it could also mean that some either tried it, proposed it, or heard of it and the powers that be employed the same reasoning I did to deny the change in definition. Without more information you are making a lot of unsupported inferences. For example, if the modern courts had upheld the traditional definition, you would never say that same sex marriages were part of the definition of marriage. You would be arguing in a circle. 

Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However, in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned. The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages.

Wikipedia || History of same-sex unions

There appears to be some question as to the extant of the practice, but given attitudes towards homosexuality historically, the absence of information is hardly conspicuous. It is true that Roman law did not acknowledge "conubium" between male partners, but to attempt to argue that same-sex marriage didn't exist in Rome at the time seems little more than quibbling about semantics. (You realize of course, you're still on the hook for such, ne?) You seem to be arguing that if the word marriage isn't used, then no marriage occurred. Which is a ridiculous argument, and not a substantive reply to the issues being discussed.

There's also the following which I have only cursorily examined but which also appears to put the wood to your argument.

In the late 16th century, the famous French essayist Michel de Montaigne wrote about two marriages between people of the same sex. The first involved women in eastern France, the second a group of men in Rome. At the time, same-sex marriages were not recognized by religious or civil law, and sodomy – a term that included a wide range of sexual acts – was a crime. As a result, when those involved were discovered they were usually brought to trial and punished, sometimes by death.

These episodes, along with many others, reveal that even in Renaissance Europe, marriage was a highly contested issue.

Marriage between two men or two women might seem like a concept that has emerged only in recent decades. For centuries, however, same-sex couples have appropriated marriage in their own ways. I investigate a particularly notable example of this – the second of the two cases recounted by Montaigne – in my recent book “Same-Sex Marriage in Renaissance Rome: Sexuality, Identity and Community in Early Modern Europe.”

A same-sex marriage ceremony in… Renaissance Rome?