By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Gay rights...round 3

reggin_bolas on 08 May 2015
The Fury said:
reggin_bolas said:

Has nothing to do with love because marriage has not always been about love. Why is that virtually every culture throughout known history has allowed the practice between a man and a woman only? The answer is biological. It's a union between a man and a woman because they can produce an offspring. Therefore marriage is an institution of family and family is narrowly thus defined. 

Arguing that previous historical practices means we in the modern age can't change and adapt because of new ideas is no different to me saying "We once lived in caves, so why build houses when there are loads of caves about."

Family is defined by the dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/family no mention of genders here.

I'd like to hear arguments for why we should have same-sex marriage when it's not self-evident, counter to common historical practice, and (seemingly) highly poltiically charged. 

Also you misunderstand the historical argument. It signifies universal, objective truth. 

More, dictionaries are affected by the political climate. Swedish SAOL recently removed words as a result of left-wing pressure and a general climate of political correctness. 



Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
generic-user-1 said:

yeah, the maya hadnt samesex marriage, so why should we?      if we look back in history, the most  civilised cultures all didnt hate on gays.

they didnt hang gay people in ancient athens or rome. those are the cultures we should look up to, and not some savages that couldnt get stuff done

It does not follow that gay people should be free from harassment and harm to gay people should be allowed to marry. It's a leap of faith that has no traceable connection to the precedent. 

the civil marriage is just a contract between 2 people to give em the right to take care for another if something happens(and they get some benefits because the state first forces them to take care of each other).  thats something relativly new, and it doesnt matter if those people are men and women, or men and men, or women and women.   ancient marriages were about money, and who will inherite the land. gay marriages normaly dont produce offspring, so this isnt a way to hold land in the family for generations. but we dont life in such a world anymore.

 



curl-6 on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:

 Why is that virtually every culture throughout known history has allowed the practice between a man and a woman only? The answer is biological. It's a union between a man and a woman because they can produce an offspring. Therefore marriage is an institution of family and family is narrowly thus defined. 

Which is why we don't let the infertile or those who don't want children marry... oh wait.



Torillian on 08 May 2015

The argument that a policy should remain the same because "it's always been that way" really doesn't seem like a logical argument. If you want to deny two people the right to be marry one another I think you need to have a reason that their being married would actually hurt society, not just that no culture before allowed it either (whether or not that's actually true)



...

NiKKoM on 08 May 2015
curl-6 said:

Incorrect; same sex marriage existed in ancient Mesopotamia, and in Rome right up until the 4th century.

this.. there is even a wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Surely the OP should have seen it when he researched this.. blame Christianity for banning same sex unions.. 



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
Lafiel on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
The Fury said:

Arguing that previous historical practices means we in the modern age can't change and adapt because of new ideas is no different to me saying "We once lived in caves, so why build houses when there are loads of caves about."

Family is defined by the dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/family no mention of genders here.

I'd like to hear arguments for why we should have same-sex marriage when it's not self-evident, counter to common historical practice, and (seemingly) highly poltiically charged. 

Also you misunderstand the historical argument. It signifies universal, objective truth. 

More, dictionaries are affected by the political climate. Swedish SAOL recently removed words as a result of left-wing pressure and a general climate of political correctness. 

that is an easy one, because same-sex marriage would make same-sex couples happy without negatively influencing anyone else

it's a pure win for society



The Fury on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:

I'd like to hear arguments for why we should have same-sex marriage when it's not self-evident, counter to common historical practice, and (seemingly) highly poltiically charged. 

Also you misunderstand the historical argument. It signifies universal, objective truth. 

More, dictionaries are affected by the political climate. Swedish SAOL recently removed words as a result of left-wing pressure and a general climate of political correctness. 

We should have same sex marriage because it's right. What more do you need? Why do you care if 2 people not in anyway affecting your life get married? Why do you care if they reproduce or not? They are not you.

An objective truth is that at one point we lived in caves... get where I'm going with this?



Hmm, pie.

reggin_bolas on 08 May 2015
curl-6 said:
reggin_bolas said:

You know I did some searching on the origins of marraige and could not find a single common denominator. Throughout history, cultures have attached different conditions and different meanings to the union. Well, except one thing that was universal, namely marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Marriage may have changed but who married did not. That should say something about marriage between a man and a woman as a self-evident truth. 

Incorrect; same sex marriage existed in ancient Mesopotamia, and in Rome right up until the 4th century.


Lazy Wiki quote : It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)"

So, the case of Rome is an outlier. Most cultures protect the superior union between a man and a female and hold it conceptually and legally different from any other recognizable union. 



teigaga on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
NiKKoM said:
uhm.. how about its a token of love between 2 people? why shouldn't 2 men or 2 women be allowed to express that? Why should it be a man and a woman? is their love somehow stronger? better?

Has nothing to do with love because marriage has not always been about love. Why is that virtually every culture throughout known history has allowed the practice between a man and a woman only? The answer is biological. It's a union between a man and a woman because they can produce an offspring. Therefore marriage is an institution of family and family is narrowly thus defined. 


Are you actually informed enough to state this as the truth? 

Secondly people do not get married simply for biological reasons, although children may be the most common reason does that mean that people shouldn't get married out of love? If so you should probably speak to most couples out there in the modern world. Ultimately history of its conception isn't relevant when today people get married for all kinds of reasons, kids just being one of them. The historical meaning of the word bastard carries no meaning in todays society for that reason. Marriage is for all kinds of thing; security, ritual and expression of love. You don't get to define it.

 



teigaga on 08 May 2015
reggin_bolas said:
curl-6 said:

Incorrect; same sex marriage existed in ancient Mesopotamia, and in Rome right up until the 4th century.


Lazy Wiki quote : It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases)"

So, the case of Rome is an outlier. Most cultures protect the superior union between a man and a female and hold it conceptually and legally different from any other recognizable union. 

"protect" I didn't know male and female unions were under threat, could you elaborate.