Regarding same-sex “marriage”, we’re already far past what even ancient Rome considered acceptable. They understood that marriage was something that could only exist between male and female because of the unique nature of that union. Men did engage in same-sex “weddings”, but the legal impact of these was zero, and such men were targets of mockery by their contemporaries for trying to force an impossibility.
Actually what Monkey is saying is right. Your definition is an evolved definition of what marriage has evolved after being in existence for thousands of year. If you look at the origin of marriage from a strict secular and legal point of view in its very beginning…back in the day when no marriage existed at all nowhere and before humans settled down… That was the reason why marriage was invented, to establish paternity and create a system within a patriarchy to traspass property. Read the origin of family, estate and private property by Frederick Engel.
Marriage was also seen in Judaism and Christianity from the earliest times. It always involved a male and female component albeit in some Jewish marriages, multiple wives were possible. The purpose was not only to provide property rights to offspring but according to a Jewish historian, it was to get the “male sexual genie into the marriage bottle” thereby creating a more stable society. Judaism soundly rejected homosexual relations as part of their societal structure. In other cases homosexual activity was encouraged or even celebrated (can we say Greek style…) but never in those cases was marriage extended to what were said to be extremely close emotional and sexual relationships.
As long as you ignore the traditions of those pesky native Americans!
As long as you ignore the traditions of those pesky native Americans!
That’s definitely relevant…It is true that there were unions - not marriages - between two individuals of the same physical sex in some native cultures, but those unions were understood by the culture as being between two distinct genders. The relevant term (at least, the one which can be easily typed using a standard keyboard) is “hwame” - the Mojave term for what we would today call a transsexual - physically one sex, but believing they were another. In some cultures, these individuals were seen as having magical powers unavailable to fully male or fully female individuals.
Fascinating pair of Strawmen!
Oh I LOVE how facts get in the way of a good story! Thank you
What is your evidence for that assertion? They are referred to as marriages in every contemporary account - indeed every account other than yours - that I have seen.
But the same physical sex.
Hwame is only one term, and the interpretation you give it is unorthodox to say the least.
Gosh, so they recognised that two physical women could not produce a child together. How does this prove that they were not considered married even though contemporary sources refer to them as married?
What makes it unique is the use of the word “marriage” in the relevant statutes.
… women were not allowed to vote, slavery was legal and Native Americans were not counted in censuses. Oh, and everybody lived like the Amish with neither cars nor televisions.
Except homosexual sex will never be equivalent to heterosexual sex, the latter being essential to marriage as a configuration having the potential and ability of naturally producing the next generations of citizens.
Thank you for speaking the truth and the obvious instead of tossing out ridiculous examples of obscure practices of yesteryear. Heterosexual marriage has potential if not ability to create new citizens and until we learn how to live healthily forever, we will all need an up and coming generation. Thus heterosexual marriages ARE superior to any same sex “marriage” however nice and however productive the couple might be as only this marriage can assure the survival of society.
Men will never be the equivalent of women, yet both men and women have the same legal rights under the law. What you have to show is that the differences justify different treatment under the law. The differences between men and women do not generally justify different treatment so they are treated equally in law.
Not out of the box at all and in fact has been kicked around some. If marriage means nothing then marriage means anything the vested parties want it to mean. I see no reason to ban polygamy or any sort of plural marriage if two of the same sex can “marry.”Will the federal judge overturn the ban on Polygamy?? How does the very same government that allows man and man to marry, ban man from marrying multiple women? So much for equality right?? Just a thought out of the box.
