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

[Amarok]

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, and 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?

He will assert his argument from tradition (that their is doubt about ) no matter what history shows .

[Angrboda]

Same-sex precedence

Ancient Romans, or at least Roman men with power and wealth, could marry same-sex partners, said Elizabeth Abbott, author of "A History of Marriage" (Seven Stories Press, 2011).

Emperor Nero (ruled A.D. 54 to A.D. 68) castrated a boy named Sporus to make him womanlike, and then married him in a traditional ceremony, which included a bridal veil and a dowry, according to the Roman historian and biographer Suetonius (circa A.D. 69).

Emperor Elagabalus (ruled A.D. 218 to A.D. 222) married Zoticus, a famous male athlete, and referred to his slave, a man named Hierocles, as his husband, Abbott said.

There are also texts referring to lesbian relationships, but not marriages, in ancient Rome, Abbott said. Perhaps these women did not have enough power or influence to actually marry, she said.

"Wealthy, powerful men in ancient Rome could do it, and find ways of doing it because they were rich and powerful," Abbott told Live Science. However, it doesn't appear that same-sex marriage was widespread in ancient Rome.

"In other words, it was a thought people had," Abbott said. "But there were very few people who were actually able to do it."

In another instance, some Native American peoples, such as the Crow, participated in same-sex marriages, although their culture likely viewed it another way, said Helen Boyd, a lecturer of gender studies at Lawrence University in Wisconsin.

Some Native American societies accepted the idea that some people have "two spirits" (the term "berdache" is also used, but some people consider it offensive). People with two spirits had both maleness and femaleness inside of them, and could marry someone who was the same biological sex, Boyd said. [10 Wedding Traditions from Around the World]

For instance, a biological male with two spirits could live as a woman and marry a man, Boyd said.

Woman-woman marriages

Across the world, there were societies in pre-colonial Africa that permitted women to marry other women. These marriages typically helped widowed women who didn't want to remarry a man or return to their family or their husband's family after the husband's death, according to a 2009 research article published in the journal Global South by Marc Epprecht, the professor and head of global development studies at Queens University in Canada.

Instead, the widow could pay a bride price and perform other rituals needed to marry another woman, Epprecht said.

The widow would then act as the husband in the relationship, and preserve her inheritance and family lineage, Epprecht said. Another man could impregnate the widow's wife, but he would have no claims on the child. Instead, the woman-woman duo would raise the child, Epprecht said.

"A central thing in African political and social thought is belonging to someone," said Thomas McClendon, a professor of history at Southwestern University in Texas. "You're someone's daughter or son, and you eventually become an ancestor when you die.

"It's important to have descendants," McClendon said. "This is a way in which women could achieve that status even if they didn't have a husband."

There are other examples of same-sex marriage: The Muxe of southern Mexico were biological males who lived as women and were allowed to marry men; the Fa'afafine of Samoa have a similar setup, as do the Hijra in India and Pakistan, and the Kathoey in Thailand, Boyd said.

"Westerners tend to put these people in the 'gay' box, so their marriages are — to our eyes — same-sex marriages, even though they are, more specifically, marriages between two differently gendered people," Boyd said.

There have always been gay people, and they've often married, "just not to each other," Abbott said.

"In my marriage book, I talk about the terrible, the dire consequences of forcing people to marry against their instincts, their orientation," Abbott said. "Historically, you had lots of unhappy marriages, probably for that reason."

LiveScience | What the Supreme Court Missed

---

---

And then there's the example of homosexual individuals in heterosexual marriages which likely has a long history and raises questions about the function of marriage, identity, prejudice, and religious proscriptions in history in societies that actively discouraged same sex partnering. At the very least, it seems to imply a desire was there that in large measure was frustrated by religious and legal prohibitions, the absence of appropriate institutions, and violence and prejudice, rather than an actual reflection of individual choice.

Instead, I’ve decided to not only share excerpts from my book about the journey, but to first, provide personal experiences from a sampling of fellow travelers who chose to say “I do” for all the wrong reasons.

The Sampling: Men, ages 30 to 60. Baby boomers and Gen X’ers. Most tied the knot with their wives between the ages of 21 - 35, and between the years of 1973 - 2002. Their marriages lasted from 8 - 38 years.

Reasons They Chose To Get Married (Here’s where you’re invited to open your minds and listen carefully!)

• I had great parents that I loved very much and I didn’t want to disappoint them so I thought I could overcome by gay feelings by getting married and having kids.

• I truly believed that if I did all the right things, God would honor my obedience and ‘make it work.’

• I married my best friend. I wanted to create a life and a family with her. I did what I wanted to do, not so much what society said I should do, and I don’t regret that. I thought it would take away the thoughts and feelings I had for men.

• I got married because I wanted to achieve an ideal of normalcy that was based on convictions that were thrust upon me by my family and religion, not on the convictions that I ever carved out on my own. I obediently did what was expected of me because I thought I had no other choice.

• I wanted to do anything that might make me straight.

• I believed that IF I didn’t get married everyone would know or somehow find out that I was GAY!

• I married because I wasn’t strong enough to stand up to family, religion, and society. I was born and raised by homophobic people and structures, and I was persuaded to be a homophobic gay man.

• In very conservative Christian circles, it was just expected that marriage and having kids was the way. If I came out back then, I would have gotten kicked out of the church. I just thought it was the right thing to do — deep down inside. I suppose, I thought it would fix me. I was too afraid of letting the real me out — it was safer to hide in a marriage.

• I wanted the suspicions of “he’s gotta be gay” to stop. I wanted to honor my faith. I wanted to have sex. I was certain that sex with a woman would make the gay feelings go away. It did for about 5 years. I wanted to be normal.

• I was anxious about it but had hope that someday I could be fully attracted to her. If I did the right things, was faithful, and continued in my commitment to her that God would honor that and allow me to achieve my goals.

• I thought that marriage would cause me to fit in and be like everyone else. I had never fit in...I was picked on and bullied my entire life and I wanted to be in society.

• I wanted to be “normal” and “straight.” I truly loved my wife. She was my best friend. I wanted a family and to have the “American Dream” I felt I could never have as a gay man. I wanted to deny the gay in me and live a straight life.

As you can see/hear, if you’re willing to observe/listen to these men’s beautiful and painful stories, it’s not as black and white as one might think, to honor one’s self and be all the colors of the gay rainbow. But let’s also look deeper at the commonalities of reasoning — religion, family expectations, societal shame, decades of the ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s when gay anything was a dirty word, even if it was becoming more mainstream to talk about.

Frankly My Dear... Gay Men Marry Straight Women! Here’s Why!

[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. 

[robvalue]

I'm going to try and break this down one more time. This is how things seem to me.

You could think of all legal contracts in three sections :

1) The agreed legal terms between the relevant parties

2) Whatever further personal meaning the contract may have to the parties

3) How the contract is viewed by other people

On the whole, these three are independent. The law doesn't care about 2 and 3, as long as they don't somehow impede the whole legal system from operating properly.

In the case of marriage, it is a legal contract in many countries, including America. Whatever it was in the past is irrelevant to this point. I don't know how it's possible to even dispute this.

Point 2 would be the emotional weight the marriage has to the couple, and any additional promises they may make to each other. If these promises don't get incorporated into the marriage contract, then they only matter to the couple, and the law isn't generally going to consider them.

Point 3 would be where Steve and RR comes in. They may view a same-sex marriage as "not a real marriage", or "not a marriage", or even "not a legal contract". It ultimately doesn't matter what they think. This doesn't affect points 1 or 2. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, but it carries no weight if it isn't backed up by legal evidence; nor do the couple have to pay any attention to it for point 2.

I'm not sure how much simpler I could make this. The only argument left is that the law shouldn't have changed to allow same-sex marriages, for some reason. That's a matter of opinion, from a moral/societal perspective, unless there is (again) some legal support. Obviously there is not, since the high court have ruled after considering every relevant aspect.

---

PS: the only other conclusion I can come to is that some people consider marriage to be magical, and not under the domain of human law.

[Ravenshire]

Well, Stevie has repeatedly claimed that marriage is neither a religious construct nor a legal institution. It must be, in his mind, solely a societal construct. Even if that were the case, our society has evolved to the point that were more accommodating of differences than we have been historically. How this can be anything other than good boggles my mind. Of course, there will always be those who don't want "others" joining their exclusive club.

[robvalue]

I think he's conflating at least 3 things at once, intentionally or otherwise, to try and justify his conclusion to himself. That's all he's going to achieve here; it's not like the law is going to be repealed if he can come up with a killer argument, and it's obvious no one is buying what he has to sell.

I picked up on his phrase "society crumbling", and I can only assume this means moving further away from a Christian-dominated culture where everything is about Jesus, and Christianity can dictate to the masses. It's genuinely sad to me that what I see as a crucial, ground breaking decision could be seen by someone else as a step backwards. Children born now, who don't get brainwashed with bigotry, are going to have a tough time understanding why anyone would have ever wanted to deny certain people the right to be married.

PS: if this is about God's blessings or definitions, then I think he can handle it himself, as I always say. He doesn't need Steve presuming to speak for him.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yabut, what if god sodom and gomorrahs the US for supporting sinful behavior....or what if some christers eternal soul is damned to hell for the contents of their own conscience or supporting equality under law, or the secular legal structure of the US?

If every god fearing christian doesn;t do their level best to shit on the people (jewish) magic book says to shit on.......are they even True Christians? Isn;t that the (bad, double-plus ungood) government infringing on their religious rights, somehow?

---

Some People™ suffer from a base and common fear, suspicion, and intolerance of that other™ that they have never had to directly confront.  The irony of the arguments proposed as a rationalization is that they are..on so many levels, worse than simply holding such a bias.  We're not entirely in control of our biases..either their origins or their continued presence within us.  It may be uncomfortable to acknowledge that in some specific sense we are bigoted, but that doesn't diminish the reality of that fact.  We may desire to vomit up a laundry list of ad hoc shit to deflect from that realization...but here again the fact of the matter remains.  

Bigots are bigots.  They are bigots when they contend that god told them to be bigots.  They are bigots when they contend to have arrived at their bigotry all by their one-sies..that this bigotry was coincidentally, and conveniently, justified post facto by magic books. Thing is, people can be bigots.  It's when the vacuum of their bigoted views become an impetus to action that it becomes intolerable.  Bigots should feel free..by all means, to not date a black guy, or not blow somebody..or marry a guy named Bill for all of the bigoted reasons their withered hearts can conjure up, lol.  They should feel free to strongly dislike a stranger for reasons they will refuse to acknowledge in polite company.  I could go on and on..but the one thing they are not free to do, is to allow their personally held bigotry to create a two class system within US law.

[robvalue]

All I'd like them to do is take ownership of the fact that they want homosexuals to have less rights under the law. It's then a matter of a difference of opinion. But they won't do that; Steve even tries to pretend it's not a legal matter. If it wasn't, then no one would care what religious people had to say. No one is trying to change what a "marriage in god's eyes" is, as if we could ever do that anyway. He can't make his mind up which one is he is talking about.

Even if the argument is, "We should do what God wants", my objections are:

1) We have know way of knowing what God wants.

2) Why should we do what he wants? If it's because of wisdom, the idea should be defensible. If it's just because of threats, then I don't know why Christians are so bothered about what will happen to "the gays", since they already think any non-Christians are headed for a bad judgement.

[The Grand Nudger]

Both questions are irrelevant, in the US.. imo.  

Even if we did know what god wants.....that has no bearing on our laws.  We are explicitly prohibited from whittling our legal system into a de facto theocracy.  

Even if non-christians are "headed for bad judgement" that is a matter between them and someone else's god(lol).....not the state.

[Cecelia]

Christians: God will judge me if I don't fight gay marriage.

Also Christians: Donate more money to charity? ARe you crazY? I worked hard for that money to go to dirty free loaders. Get those illegal immigrants out of this country, too. Who gives a crap about the kids? Those parents should've never come here in the first place.