1 In Maine Passes, Gay Marriage Overturned

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Question 1 is ahead 52-48 with 80% reporting. Voters of Maine have decided to overturn legislature-imposed "gay marriage" and stand by true marriage. It's safe to call it at this point. It's up to the anti-democratic lawyers to fight the will of the people now.

Organizers of Prop 1 have declared victory. The Associated Press also has called it.

Pro-gay marriage groups raised about twice as much money as opponents, further deepening the upset in this liberal bastion. San Fransisco Chronicle notes that Maine has "no evangelical Christian mega-churches like those in California from which to draw same-sex marriage opponents."

On the other hand, Referendum 71 in Washington passed. This allows gay couples there to receive "rights" that were previously reserved to married couples. Still, there has been no instance in American history when voters approved of "gay marriage."

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

(Actually, Gay Marriage rights were not court-imposed in Maine, but rather bestowed by the elected legislature.) Public opinion was against racial integration when the courts imposed it. Public opinion was against allowing interracial marriage when the courts imposed it. If you leave human rights up to a popular vote, you get no rights.

I know bigotry in general is responsible for Prop 1 passing, but religion is the bedskirt that such bigotry hides behind. In the final balance of social benefits vs. detriments, religion is an anachronism and social evil and must be excised. We lived with slavery for thousands of years of human civilization, but in relatively recent years we (mostly) got rid of that. C'mon; we can do the same for religion!

Dr B said...

Thank you for the correction.

I agree this is not really about civil rights, it's about attacking religion.

WOW!! A victory for REAL morality!! Marriage is God's institution and I stand by His definition. Most of us who are happy about this want equal rights for everybody, as long it is labeled for what it is, and don't change the definition of marriage to do it. It's about a definition, not rights, except when you want to delete real inalienable rights in hopes of creating new pseudo-rights. Bigotry has many faces, including anti-religious bigotry, which I agree with Dr B is the real issue here.

Anonymous said...

Who are the real bullies? Who actually cares about real human rights? It's pretty obvious to me. We already saw the attacks, discrimination, and intimidation tactics happen in California last year. They want us to be afraid to speak out. It's domestic terrorism.
From http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411801_gayrights03.html?source=mypi:
"The petitions contain the names and addresses of people who signed. Gay rights groups have said they want to put the names of people who signed the petitions online. The group Protect Marriage Washington, which collected nearly 138,000 signatures to qualify R-71 for the November ballot, says those people could be harassed, amounting to an infringement on their free speech rights."

Jess said...

While I'm admittedly sad for those gay couples who are probably feeling devastated today, this is truly a victory of the people's will over their legislature and government. This is freedom.
Most importantly though, I think it's a victory for the family. Once again Americans choose to protect the most important unit of society. I wonder when the gay community can finally accept that the electorate has never sided with them.

Anonymous said...

"I agree this is not really about civil rights, it's about attacking religion."

This, above all things, is a lie. It's a security blanket, a pacifier. Do understand:

The dominant culture in America is not facing any discrimination here. White Christians have shaped US politics since before America declared itself a independent, and that sweaty, fearful grip on the reigns of the country is now being used to persecute another group of people. Gay marriage doesn't harm Christians, children or society, and allowing Christian beliefs to negate the rights of other people is a gross politcal folly.

What saddens me is that you are happy, proud and joyful, that a group of people banded together to discriminate against another. I believe people ought to worship whom and whatever they like, as long as it doesn't harm anyone, but in recent years, Christians have used their relgion to hurt people, on a fundamental level. You're telling millions of gays and lesbians across America that they are second class-citizens, that they don't cout. That you are "better" than them, and that your beliefs are "better" than theirs.

This is nothing short of selfishness, and if God exists, he truly is ashamed of his followers.

Jess said...

There is no persecution of gays or lesbians going on. They have ALL the same rights because they are given the same opportunities. They can get a marriage license, just like they can get a medical license, a contracting license, or a driver's license if they want. If it's their personal choice not to pursue one, that's their prerogative. And obviously, with any license, they need to work within the definition of that license. Marriage is between a man and a woman. If you go around changing defintions of that license to mean anything you want, it becomes meaningless. "Christians" do not want 'marriage destroyed by making it meaningless. Those who don't value preserving the definition of marriage are the last people who should be trying to change it.

I have never seen as much hate spilling out of "Christians" as I have witnessed from gay-marriage supporters. After Prop 8 passed in CA I witnessed church vandalism and services disrupted with vulgar jeering. I witnessed sacred religious buildings literally under siege by angry mobs threatening to deface them. I witnessed people forced to leave their jobs because of threats.

It has been no different this time around in Maine. This blogger collected some of the gay community’s hate-tweets: http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2009/11/maine-voters-uphold-marriage-strike.html

I'm sorry, annon., but your hatred of religion does not stand up to the facts. It must make your blood boil to see all of the wholesome good people and families boldly standing up against our exonerating state media and education systems, standing in stark contrast to the hate-filled, motley gangs protesting marriage. We will never let you destroy our families and our religions. They are the most fundamental rights that our constitution protects.

Joe Callan said...

The customs of Marriage differ religion to religion, don't they? As a result, isn't it rather dangerous to give Government ANY kind of say in the terms of marriage, be it heterosexual or homosexual?

Easy solution, folks. Remove marriage from the law books altogether. The government has no place in religious custom. This protects marriage for Fundamentalist Christians as much as it protects marriage for homosexuals. If it's not right to tell the Catholic church they MUST marry a homosexual couple, it's not right to tell another church that they are forbidden from doing so.

Tax books too. Simply because two people are married doesn't mean they deserve a break or augmentation of their taxes. People use public resources as INDIVIDUALS. Marriage doesn't attach two individuals at the hip, so it doesn't effect the responsibility they have to pay their fair share, married or not.

As far as insurance goes, it ought to be up to the company to decide. If there aren't any companies willing to ensure gay couples, I guarantee it's only a matter of time before one steps up to fill the demand.

Anonymous said...

It's interesting to see people citing statistics about church vandalism and persecuted Christians, and perhaps ignoring all of the hate and shame directed toward gays. I'd never condone the vandalism of churches, but if you're going to band together to purposefully take away the rights of a group of people?

You deserve it. This is an act of selfishness, exclusion, and petty elitism. You're tying to keep marriage to yourselves, because it's "yours." The value of marriage - that is, love, protection and commitment - does not diminish when the two married people are of the same sex. Love matters, trust matters, but Christians don't want to share. It's vile, and you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Voting "yes" on Prop 1 makes you guilty of a hate crime. You didn't "protect" marriage, you took it away from people who just wanted to love each other and have it recognized. It's selfishness on your part, cruel, callous and ignorant.

God would never have wanted this.

Anonymous said...

Anon,
Christians are not keeping marriage to themselves. Lesbians and gays CAN get married, but as with anything, there are parameters. Those parameters are NOT "love, protection and commitment". If they were, then marriage could include someone marrying a family member, an animal, a child. You can't change marriage to be whatever you want or it is not longer marriage. Recognize the union and give it all the rights you want, but don't call what it isn't.

Anonymous said...

Centuries ago, men and women joined together, primarily to have and raise children. The word that was given to describe this particular union was marriage (in the language of the time obviously). It was no different than the word white being given to describe the color of snow. The thing came first, the word to describe it came later. You cannot broaden the definition of marriage because the word itself was created to describe something very specific. If you are not talking about a man and a woman, another word must be used. It's a very simple concept that originated with language itself, regardless of changing moral tides.

K.T. said...

Those who honor marriage as described in the Bible are guilty of a "hate crime"? Funny, I don't recall Prop 1 supporters hating gays and lesbians. They just wanted to keep together a unit that best supports raising a family. Talk about taking this to another level of name calling. Calm down.

Also, they probably shouldn't be accused of "keeping marriage to themselves" considering that many of them likely aren't married either. Whoops!

Anonymous said...

We seem to be confused on the definition of marriage, so let's clear a few things up.

Ideologically, marriage is about love and commitment. Socially, it's public acceptance of a sexual relationship, but functionally, marriage is a legal union of two people.

Marriage has existed as contract before Christianity or the Abrahamic religions (see Babylonian law), but every society with written marriage laws used them to codify property rights and the succession of power. In this way, two people in a relationship could easily decide what belonged to whom (including children and seats of power) by returning to the terms of marriage law. Marriage, then and today, is a legal contract.

Same-sex marriage has existed before the present in similar forms, dating back to classical antiquity. In China during the Ming Dynasty, there were elaborate ceremonial unions between women, or men, which was also present in ancient European history. Roman law, however, had actual marriages between same sex couples, using the exact same laws and ceremonies as heterosexual couples. These marriages continued through third century, until Christianity became the state religion of Rome, and the Codex Theodosianus demanded the execution of any homosexual married people.

If anything, Christians redefined marriage, and continue to do so. Jewish law once allowed men to abandon their wives, or stone them with the accusation of adultery, and that's in the Bible. Additionally, girls as young as 13 could marry, and that was often the age when a man's daughters were betrothed. Do you still honor that definition of marriage?

What must be understood is that the qualifications of marriage have changed repeatedly, and this is no different. What's more, civil unions are not the same as marriage, which I think we all understand. I've heard people say that should be enough for gays and lesbians, but that is "separate but equal" language - the same language used by the Supreme Court to uphold the racial segregation of Jim Crow laws.

By opposing gay marriage, you are supporting segregation by sexuality. You're saying that people born a certain way should not be allowed the same privileges as you. Do understand that bills like Proposition 1 do not "protect" marriage, because marriage is not under attack. Allowing gays to experience the same rights does not cheapen yours, it upholds their importance. Do you honestly think that your marriages would suddenly become null if same-sex couples also could marry?

This is ludicrous. You're being selfish bigots, plain and simple.

K.T. said...

anonymous, if christians are selfish bigots for being intolerant, wouldn't your own animosity and intolerance for them make you a bigot as well?

i think you prove our point well. one of the ways that prop 1 protects is that our kids are not going to grow up being told their parents are bigots for basing their moral beliefs in christian teachings. propositions like this also protect churches from bitter people like you who would try to get them to marry a gay couple just to get them busted by the law if they refuse. none of us are stupid enough to assume that wouldn't happen eventually.

bty, you're not earning any points by acting like a wounded victim. everybody has the right to marry. if someone is "gender confused" and chooses not to do it, it's not anyone else's responsibility to make them feel better about an opportunity they didn't take.

I love all of that fake history you made up about gay marriage being practiced in ancient China and Rome. Oh, and slandering the ancient Jews by saying they made up accusations of adultery so they could stone their wife when they got tired of them was real rich.

I'm sorry but the simple crux of the matter is that we want to protect true marriage because it is the ideal situation for child raising, and that is the future of our society. You want to change the definition of marriage to give social legitimacy to your sexual perversions. I'm sorry, (and truly, I do feel sorry for all people who are gender-confused, I wouldn't wish that on anyone) but we will not put our children at risk to make you feel better about yourselves. We are not the ones who need to change to accommodate you.

Anonymous said...

KT: Having been a Christian once, I bear animosity toward actions, not people or beliefs. Acting in a bigoted way does not make one a bigot, but a systemic string of such choices, rooted in wrong beliefs could. Choosing to impose on the rights of others is a contemptible choice, but yours to make. Religion should be tolerated, the same as political preferences or sexuality. People have the right to practice what they believe without opposition - I feel we can agree on this.

Consider your religion as such an example: No government - federal, state, or local - has the right to prevent you from practicing your beliefs as you see fit, given they do not break any laws or harm any people. Speech and the press are protected in the same way, as is sexuality. People can choose to worship, speak and love as they see fit.

But why not marry? You've just agreed that everyone has the right to marry, yet seem to approve of a motion to deny that right to millions of people. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, signed and recognized by the state. Historically, gender has not mattered with regard to marriage, but social acceptance has. Reserving marriage rights to male-female couples is exclusion - these people are trying to exercise their right to marry, yet the opportunity is being withheld.

Additionally, "gender confusion" is a pejorative term for transgender people, which is not related to homosexuality. Suggesting that gays are simply "confused" is something of a misnomer. The American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social workers have stated that sexuality is inherent, not chosen, formulated in early childhood, and impervious to forced or chosen change. To suggest that homosexuals could have simply "stopped being gay" is a misinformed conclusion, in the same way that a heterosexual person could not "choose" to be gay. Since sexuality is not self-determined, only acknowledged, society needs to be permissive and accepting of people with non-standard sexual identities. This primarily is the reasoning for allowing gays to marry. There are millions of gay people who wish to be included, not excluded. Accepted, not shunned.

It's also worth noting that disapproving churches could not be forced to marry gays, in the same way that churches can choose who to baptize and who to commune. Religious marriages are separate from legal ones, and the doctrine separating church and state secures the rights of churches to marry who they please and the state to marry who it pleases, considering non-religious people can marry too. Implying otherwise is rather alarmist, and perhaps a bit misinformed.

Regardless, do you really believe gay couples would want to be married in a congregation of people who condemn them? There are certainly churches that do accept gay people as they are, as congregation or clergy, and it's only logical to expect gay couples would choose an institution where they are welcomed, or simply be married by the state. Once again, this argument comes down to a legal contract, and there's no reasonable basis for denying the right to a marriage license to same-sex couples.

Anonymous said...

John Galt:

Fake history? All of the information I've cited is available on the internet or your local library.

The history of same-sex relationships in China can be found in the book "The Passion of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China," by Bret Hinsch.

I also mentioned John Boswell's "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe," and the information on gay marriage in Ancient Rome can be found in the eighth volume of Cassius Dio's "Roman History," Cicero's "Phillpic," Martial's "Epigrams," and Juvenal's "Satire."

Additionally, I used information form Steve Greenberg's "Wrestling with God and men: homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" and another of John Boswell's books, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality."

Some of those sources are available on Google Books, though others you may need to purchase or find in a library collection. I wouldn't make up information to prove a point - it's disingenuous.

On Lawn said...

@anonymous,

You bring up an interesting conundrum.

First, Boswell's book has issues.

But here's the biggest issue I have with the works you cited...

If you were to tell the GLBT today that their Domestic Partnerships, Reciprocal Beneficiaries or Civil Unions were the same as marriage, how would they reply?

Boswell mentioned a blood brother ceremony which applied to men only, and was not presumed to be (and with only rare exception truly) sexual at all. Given that option today, how would the GLBT respond to it? (To me that option today is like the Reciprocal Beneficiary program offered in Hawaii).

So you tell me Anonymous, are these evidence of marriage? Or just unions that served to formalize a different relationship then we understand as marriage?

Nowhere in history has there been same-sex unions considered the same as (or held with the same title as) the marital relationship where two people band together because in general that society anticipates they will create children between them.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn:

Perhaps you didn't read far back enough. Roman law did allow for same-sex marriages (specifically marriage, not some separate-but-equal institution), and gay citizens had the same rights. Until the Christians came to power and executed any married gays. Then they only had the right to be dead.

Regardless, the production of children has never been the function of marriage. It is, by definition of every single culture with marriage laws, a contract of property rights. Speaking on children, elderly couples are still allowed to marry, despite menopause preventing the woman from producing children, and sterile or infertile couples still marry, do they not? In both cases, adoption or surrogate parenthood is a viable option, which is extended to gay and lesbian parents as well.

Finally, historical precedent isn't necessary to change a country's laws or norms. We abolished slavery, equalized the treatment of women (to some degree) and allowed people to elect their government, without the prior qualification of land ownership, gender or race. All of these were, at the time, radical ideas, just as the opposition stated that historically, that was the way things always have been, and change was unnatural.

Societies do change, for the better, and opposing gay marriage for lack of children is an anachronism. I have yet to hear a good reason for withholding marriage rights from homosexuals, because with all honesty, there isn't one. A Christian marriage has certain expectations, a Jewish or Islamic one has others, but a legal marriage - the license you obtain from the state and sign - is always same. It's a contract between two individuals, and you're denying a whole group of people their right to obtain one. The state doesn't ask you if you'll have children when you go in for your marriage license, or if you believe in God. One denomination's view on marriage should not be imposed on the whole of society, and that's exactly what you're doing.

Let others do as they please, and if you disapprove of gay marriage, do your part: Don't marry a gay person.

On Lawn said...

@anonymous: Perhaps you didn't read far back enough. Roman law did allow for same-sex marriages [...]

And I know it did not.

But lets solve this disagreement fairly, produce the quotes which lead you to believe this was the case and give the full reference (author, book, page, etc...)

Yes, I'm calling your bluff.

@anonymous: Regardless, the production of children has never been the function of marriage.

Now I'm pretty sure you are misreading history, and my point as well.

Instead of saying the purpose is simply to create children, you'll notice I said marriage is more about securing the needs and entitlements of both spouses and the children
in preparation of raising those children.

You do yourself and history a disservice by simplifying it to simply producing children.

So far you aren't inspiring any confidence in being able to deliver...

@anonymous: I have yet to hear a good reason for withholding marriage rights from homosexuals

Talk about inspiring confidence, you are lying and I can prove it.

A gay guy finds a woman that he trusts and cherishes and wants to get married to her. Who is going to be the first group of people to stand up and say that is a violation? The law or the GLBT?

I bet you have heard good reasons why a gay can't get married. And I bet you want marriage to be re-defined because it is such a good reason you want the world to change marriage to revolve around it.

Admit it, I'm right.

@Anonymous: It's [Marriage is] a contract between two individuals, and you're denying a whole group of people their right to obtain one.

Another lie, and I can prove it once again. No one is stopping a gay or lesbian couple from making a contract between them. Period.

If marriage is just a contract, throughout history that is all it is, then your problem is solved -- there already are equal rights to contracts.

Hmmmm, in related news, I noticed you completely avoided my point about Civil Unions, Domestic Partnerships, and Reciprocal Beneficiaries.

Interesting.

So here's my proposed compromise...

Let it be. Speaking words of wisdom, let it be.

Let homosexuality be homosexuality, and let marriage be marriage.

Because you can meet the needs of both just fine with recognition and protection under the law. You just can't do it with the same program for both.

So can you let marriage be marriage, or do you feel it has to be removed of its ability to encourage equal recognition of rights and responsibilities for the man, woman, and the child they create together. You can't do that effectively if marriage doesn't expect the integration of one man and one woman.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn: Despite your rudeness, I'm perfectly willing to furnish my sources, if only to introduce a little evidence in this wasteland of good sense. I hope you have an appetite for crow.

From Cassius Dio's "Epitome," volume 62, chapter 28. After the Roman Emperor Nero's wife Sabrina I died, he remarried a woman who looked like her, and then a young man who did as well:

"In due time, though already married to Pythagoras, a freedman, he formally married Sporus and assigned the boy a regular dowry according to contract; and the Romans and others publicly celebrated their wedding."

From Tullius Cicero's orations against Marcus Antonius (volume 2), "Phillipic." The son of Curio the Elder was married to Antonius, and the Latin uses the specific verb for the act of marriage, "nubere:"

"Curio stepped in, who carried you off from your public trade, and, as if he had bestowed a matron's robe on you, settled you in a steady and durable wedlock."

From Martial's "Epigrams," volume 12:

"The bearded Calistratus has been take in marriage by the lusty Afer, in the same way a virgin is usually take in marriage by her husband. The torches shone forth, the flame-colored veil concealed the bride's countenance, and the language heard at bridals was not wanting. Even the dowry was settled."

From Juvenal's "Satire," volume 2:

"'I have a ceremony to attend," quoth one, "at dawn to-morrow, i the Quirinal valley.' 'What is the occasion?' 'No need to ask: a friend is taking to himself a husband; quite a small affair.'"

Additionally, the Codex Theodisanus, written in 342, bans the existing practice of gay marriage (volume 9, chapter 7):

"When a man marries a man as if he were a woman, what can he be seeking where gender has lost its place?" and "We order the laws to arise, justice to be armed with an avenging sword, so that those shameless persons guilty of this either now or in the future should be subject to exquisite punishment."

Clearly, gay marriage occurred, and the new religion of of Rome couldn't have dissolved an institution that didn't exist in the first place. You're welcome to call me a liar, despite it being a baseless accusation.

Let's move on. You yourself said that same-sex unions are not the same as marriages, because of the societal expectation of children. Therefore, it's not wrong of me to infer that your grounds for marriage is the possible production of children. I see in your follow-up response that you cite children again, so you're chewing shoe leather at this point. They're your words - if you have a problem with them, recant.

Anonymous said...

Split into two parts because of the character limit.

Additionally, civil unions and domestic partnerships fail to meet the relationship needs of gay couples, because the rights and responsibilities differ based on jurisdiction. Domestic partners are not entitled to spousal rights to Social Security benefits, nor pensions from private employers, and may not be treated as spouses for Federal tax law. Not all states in the US offer civil unions or domestic partnerships either, and being a "state's rights" issue, a domestic partnership may have value in one state and none in another.

Funny thing is, not only are domestic partnerships separate, they're not even equal.

Continuing on. You clumsily eluded my request for good reasons against gay marriage, and then attempted to stuff a whole load of words into my mouth. Let's be clear: Marriage need not be redefined, because as it stands, it's a legal contract between two consenting adults. All I as is that homosexuals be allowed the same rights. If anything, Christian groups are trying to "redefine" marriage by pushing Amendments for the Constitution to specifically exclude same-sex marriages.

Again, you've yet to produce from me a "lie." Currently, it is states (and anti-gay groups) preventing homosexuals from obtaining a specific contract - a marriage license. What's offered instead is not equal, not nationally available, and not always recognized. That's not a compromise, now is it? Gay people are being denied their equal protection under the law, and you're supporting segregation based on sexuality.

Quoting John Lennon won't make your position any less reprehensible, and I wonder how he might feel, hearing his words used to further a message of intolerance. Rather ironic, don't you think?

Anonymous said...

I don't understand all of the fighting over the word "marriage". If gays really just want equal rights, why are they not fighting for domestic partners to have the same tax, insurance, and social security benefit rights? Why does this have to involve the heterosexual marriage issue at all?

All of this hostility can't really be about them just wanting to feel included, is it? I think we all got past that by 4th grade

Anonymous said...

I think it's an ideological battle as much as it is a practical one. Allowing gays to marry circumvents the difficulty of standardizing the benefits of domestic partnerships, because marriages are already nationally and internationally recognized, and they work already. There's little sense in creating something different for homosexuals when marriage law is so much more clearly defined and understood. Why reinvent the wheel?

On the other side, it's certainly a battle of beliefs, because in all cultures, marriage is a public acknowledgement of a sexual relationship. Cohabitation can appear unstable (or morally wrong, depending on your sexual values), and marriage is society's way of affirming that relationship. Funny how a simple exchange of vows completely alters how people view a relationship. Anyway, because marriage is the standard way seal a sexual relationship, securing it as wholesome and proper, withholding marriage rights from gays is a tacit disapproval of their lifestyle. The push for civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other marriage alterantives comes down to the idea that gays can't really get married, because their relationships isn't equal.

So, marriage already works. Courts, employers, tax laws, wills, and other relevant instituions have provisions for married couples, which means that if gay people could get married, there wouldn't be any need for additional legislation. It's actually less work, which leaves the whole ideological "thing." A lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea of gay people getting married - it doesn't sit well with them or it feels unnatural, but fundamentally, it's not their decision. Gay marriage doesn't tangibly affect their own marriages, so there's not really a fair reason to oppose it.

Really, why argue about something that doesn't affect you?

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous,

No need to eat crow, when you fail to make your own point. As I said, I'm more familiar with the references then you are.

Your quotes all show people acting out a ceremony (issuing dowry, etc...) I'm not concerned with theatrics of a wedding day. Gays can have their own ceremonies between them today, issue dowries, and the law allows it.

I'll give you another try and repeat my criteria...

So you tell me Anonymous, are these evidence of marriage? Or just unions that served to formalize a different relationship then we understand as marriage?

Nowhere in history has there been same-sex unions considered the same as (or held with the same title as) the marital relationship where two people band together because in general that society anticipates they will create children between them.


[...] you'll notice I said marriage is more about securing the needs and entitlements of both spouses and the children in preparation of raising those children.

Again, I'm have no problem with gays acting like a marriage. It is a noble institution to mimic (however they miss the most important part of it). My question comes to how the law, or culture of the time treated them. I have no reference where they were given the same expectations.

The practice of purchasing boys with dowries was not expected to be life long. The boys would regularly get wives later on to have children with.

The practice of warriors establishing a recognized relationship between then (even bedding each other in the process and having mock-ceremonies) was also not expected to last past military retirement. The Caesars who instituted the practice thought that without marriages at home they would be more loyal on the battle field. But then at retirement they were free to find a woman and really get married.

Since none of them showed the same social expectation in marriage, none of them qualify for what I'm looking for as historic same-sex marriage.

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: Additionally, civil unions and domestic partnerships fail to meet the relationship needs of gay couples, because the rights and responsibilities differ based on jurisdiction.

Is that the only problem? While marriage has more consensus, that condition still exists. The rights and responsibilities of marriage also differ based on jurisdiction.

@Anonymous: domestic partnership may have value in one state and none in another

And in all honesty, that is just a complaint that the solution isn't expedient enough for you. Take the time to do it right, Rome wasn't built in a day. Consensus is never really built by force.

@Anonymous: Again, you've yet to produce from me a "lie." Currently, it is states (and anti-gay groups) preventing homosexuals from obtaining a specific contract - a marriage license.

Actually, you produced both of your lies once again in one neat package -- right there. Re-iterating a lie doesn't make it true, its just doubling down.

The two lies, for your convenience,

1) The expectation of marriage equality in encouraging equal recognition of rights and responsibilities regarding the potential to have and raise children, is what is preventing a homosexual from getting a marriage license.

I don't see why marriage equality should be subservient to homosexual intolerance of the other gender. Do you? Then explain it to me.

You know full well with sites like ex-gay watch, how the GLBT treats members who decide to try to marry someone of the other gender. You know full well the doctrines brought to bear by the GLBT association to restrain and restrict members from even thinking they can get married in the first place.

You accept those reasons why gays can't get married without question, directly contradicting your assertion that you've never seen such a reason presented. Why deny it? My guess is very simple, because you are deeply in denial of your own intolerance and bigotry.

So don't even pretend to get away with the lie that you haven't heard a good reason gays and lesbians can't get married. That isn't putting words in your mouth, that is pointing out your hypocrisy.

2) That marriage is categorically a contract. It is not. What other contracts do you know of that....

a) Need a license to enter into
b) Require in the covenants benefits and responsibilities from third party members not present in the agreement and ratifying of the contract

You said that, "Marriage [is] a legal contract between two consenting adults." It re-iterates what you said before. If that is all marriage is to you, then you can't say gays are not entitled to it -- because they certainly are.

But since it doesn't suffice for the GLBT, it shows marriage is something more. You just need to be honest about what that something is.

I've not yet once found a person who could show me something that they needed in marriage from the state that was not already provided for (or could be provided for) by Reciprocal Beneficiaries programs.

But what men and women deserve from marriage is marriage equality, which requires the equal representation and quality of representation from each gender in each marriage. What children deserve from marriage is the mutual love and respect of each identity that combined to created the child (which also requires one man and one woman).

Everyone wins. At least everyone interested in marriage.

But look, if you aren't interested in marriage as I just outlined it, then simply don't get married. Don't ruin what marriage means for others, that's just rude.

On Lawn said...

That's not a compromise, now is it?

Another kind correction to offer. A compromise means both sides don't get everything they want. They find the middle ground where they both get what they need. No homosexual couple needs the word "marriage" to get the practical recognition of the responsibilities associated with their committed and loving relationship.

Not only is it a compromise, it is a fair compromise. Complaining that not every state has reached that compromise doesn't validate the deformation you wish to do to marriage.

@Anonymous: and you're supporting segregation based on sexuality

And the lies, that you should know better then say, keep coming. Neutering marriage is supporting segregation based on sexuality. It removes the expectation of gender integration in marriage (one man and one woman, hence removing gender reference, hence 'neutered') so that people can form segregation of the sexes in their own arrangements (either no men, or no women). What you want, to put it another way, is to neuter marriage for the sake of sexual intolerance. And that isn't equality or tolerance in my book.

Quoting John Lennon won't make your position any less reprehensible, and I wonder how he might feel, hearing his words used to further a message of intolerance.

Funny, because it actually points out your intolerance. All you need is love my friend, and let marriage be marriage. No need to deform it, to neuter it of the gender affirming expectation "one man and one woman".

To me, your demand to remove that expectation of integration is analogous to a demand to remove the expectation of racial integration in the schools. It is a step backward towards equality, not forward. It only serves intolerance, instead of questioning that intolerance and encouraging integration.

So once again, let marriage be marriage. If you don't want it, don't get married. Don't ruin what marriage means to men women and children because it is deemed incompatible with the intolerance of the other gender that homosexuals want to practice in their own romantic affairs.

Their needs can be met, so can the needs of those engaged in practices were we reasonably expect procreation. Just not with the same program, nor do we need to.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn: I've provided historical same-sex marriage, but you've decided to interpret the facts incorrectly, and draw an unfounded, blithely ignorant conclusion. The same-sex marriages performed in Ancient Rome followed all the usual customs for the social aspect of marriage (the ceremony), and all the legal requirements of marriage - the dowry wasn't ceremonial, it was required by law, and part of the marriage contract. Men who married men did so according to the stipulations of Roman law.

Are you sure you're familiar with the material?

Now, you've said something interesting that I'd like to examine - that gays can mimic the institution of marriage, but not actually be included because they miss the "most important part." By your definition, what is that part? You've cited the "social expectations" of marriage, but how do you see those, specifically? Gay couples protect and love each other, gay couples can raise children, and as marriage is a contract of property rights, I don't seen an instance where gay marriage can't fulfill the contract.

Additionally, as I've explained before, there need not be historical precedent for gay marriage (and yet, it moves!), only good reasoning. Civil and domestic partnerships don't provide equal protection under the law for gay couples, but marriage would, so allowing same-sex to marry is a logical conclusion. Why then, legally, should gays be excluded from such rights?

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: Let's move on. You yourself said that same-sex unions are not the same as marriages, because of the societal expectation of children. Therefore, it's not wrong of me to infer that your grounds for marriage is the possible production of children.

I believe I've settled this generally, but not to put too fine a point on this...

To produce children is an over-simplification, as the importance of marriage is not that they were created but how, and with what expectation of support from those that created them.

That may or may not be meaningful to you, though your re-wording here shows you can respond to such concerns, but please respect that it is meaningful to people defending marriage. It is, in fact, the most important aspect about marriage as far as the social recognition of it.

You can argue, like your examples previous, that people can have their own personal misunderstandings of marriage. Those affect just those people. But you also suggest in your call for federal consensus that you want a more total social re-working of marriage.

It is foolhardy to think that what you do and believe on a personal scale works the same way as what happens on a federal scale. Its naive and irresponsible to expect others to have the same suspension of disbelief.

Just think about that.

Shajee'ah said...

Question for Anonymous (the one who is for gay marriage),

A diversity of religious beliefs, whether Judaic, Hindu, Islamic, Christian, etc. is respected in this country and everybody agrees this is important and should be protected. As for those who subscribe to the religious teachings that homosexuality is wrong, it is their right to do so.

My question is, if homosexual marriage is granted, what protection or guarantee will be given to keep children from being taught that their parents are guilty of hate if they vote a certain way, or bigots for believing in the Bible or the Qur'an for example?

Some schools have been getting involved in this and it is causing concern that making religious judgements is not their place. I may be wrong, but as far as I've seen the propositions haven't really addressed this.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn: I see you're running around in circles, so let's condense your tangential points, shall we?

1. You say civil/domestic partnerships should be "good enough" for gays, first saying they're equal, then admitting that while they're not, they could be fixed and getting upset about the inequality is a matter of impatience. Then you come back around and say it's fair. Is it or isn't it? The whole issue could be solved by allowing gays to marry - the institution already exists, it works, so why exclude?

2. You can't decide on what marriage is, while I've been consistent. It's contract, issued by the state, accompanied by a ceremony that has no legal basis or bearing. Signing the marriage license is what makes a couple married - not trading rings in a church. Your definition of marriage is apparently convoluted, as you've yet to clearly explain what, for you, it is and isn't. Regardless, your personal definition doesn't matter, and neither does that of any church, because individuals and religious institutions don't issue marriage licenses - the state does.

3. You cite gender differences, societal norms, "deforming" marriage and other alarmist rhetoric, but none of that relates to why two consenting legal adults shouldn't be allowed to sign a marriage license. Do understand: Your values do not matter. This is a legal issue, and it doesn't apply to you. Are you so selfish to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow change the legal rights of heterosexual couples?

All I hear is "Me! Me! Me!" and this isn't your battle. You can call me a liar or intolerant or ignorant (you have already, so why stop the childish tirade?), but it doesn't change the fact that you are fighting for something that doesn't affect you in the slightest, and shouldn't matter to you. If a group of people was trying to deny you legal rights, I'd hear you singing another song.

On Lawn said...

@Anonyumous: I've provided historical same-sex marriage, but you've decided to interpret the facts incorrectly

I see you are confused at such simple things as "disagree" and "incorrect". How arrogant, but ultimately immaterial.

@Anonymous: The same-sex marriages performed in Ancient Rome followed all the usual customs for the social aspect of marriage (the ceremony) [...] Men who married men did so according to the stipulations of Roman law.

Just to re-iterate on this point, the wedding (a.k.a. "marriage (the ceremony)") is not enough to call it a marriage. And that is not my "interpretation", that is also true for the GLBT who've been performing weddings for decades without being satisfied that it is marriage for them.

So me and the GLBT are in agreement that is not enough to be considered "same-sex marriage" as they see it today. Seems that is a fair interpretation for both sides, though you are very uncomfortable about it.

@Anonymous: the dowry wasn't ceremonial

Except for where it wasn't required or expected. A dowry was a way for families to pass an inheritance along to women who could not formally own anything themselves. It was a requirement for that reason. For the stage presentations you present, it was just a prop.

@Anonymous: it was required by law

For real marriages. And by such we have a distinction between what you (and the performers called) marriage and the social expectation of marriage.

Note the wording you quoted and see if it was an expectation or requirement for the weddings you mentioned:

From Martial's "Epigrams," volume 12:

"The bearded Calistratus has been take in marriage by the lusty Afer, in the same way a virgin is usually take in marriage by her husband [...]"

Note, this is the language of introducing a society to something foreign by relating it to something already known, not the familiar language of a reference to a social custom.

"[...] Even the dowry was settled."

Again this isn't the language of legal expectation. The use of "even" denotes something that was extra-ordinary, rather then required as you suggest.

Sure they followed the stipulations for marriage, and it was their freedom to do so. I can get a driver's license and ride a bike, following all the stipulations for driving a car on the roads.

It is your gross overstatement to say that is the same thing as there being a Roman law of marriage that regulated these practices with the same social expectation of marriage. You haven't provided that evidence yet. You've, in fact, provided evidence against that.

You accuse me of interpreting incorrectly, I'm just pointing out that your show is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

On Lawn said...

@ Anonymous: I've explained before, there need not be historical precedent for gay marriage (and yet, it moves!), only good reasoning.

I've not seen good reasoning yet from you, you've produced many items which were inconsistent to the point of questioning your own honesty. But that you are happy with your inconsistency as "good" is more grist for the mill.

Why am I looking for historic precedent? As a social experiment, neutering marriage is a very big change. The precedent should show how well that society fared with that change.

That is why I need a change to be for a whole society, not for mavericks mimicing a ceremony. As I pointed out before, it doesn't follow the full weight and importance that you and the GLBT are requiring marriage to change into. If it isn't good enough for your goals, why should it be good enough for your precedent?

Taken as such, you point to Nero, and other Roman examples which were part of the decline of Rome. Hence, even if you are right (though your evidence falls far short of that) it would be in correlation with decline and eventual death of that society.

Yes, it moves, and it is good reasoning. But not for your goal in this conversation.

@Anonymous: Civil and domestic partnerships don't provide equal protection under the law for gay couples

Two ways to show your error here.

1) As stated you are entirely wrong. They do provide equal protection for gay couples as a subset of romantic couples. But assuming you mean more then just gays, gender integration and lesbians who each have separate issues that would not equally be considered. That is not equality.

2) Even if you want equal protection for brideless or groomless arrangements with those that are fully integrated, marriage doesn't answer that. Even where marriage has been neutered in the quest for homogenization with heterosexuality, they are still without the same benefits.

Even at a national level, benefits presume procreation would not apply -- or worse be twisted into something most inequitable for the children who have a UN recognized right to know their heritage.

But the point of equality still stands. Gay and Lesbian arrangements are not marriage equality, they are gender segregation. Separate is not equal.

It is not equality, nor equal protection to neuter marriage for the sake of their intolerance of the other gender.

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: The whole issue could be solved by allowing gays to marry - the institution already exists, it works, so why exclude?

How funny that everything you consider is "the whole issue". Does that mean the concerns I bring up simply don't exist?

While arrogant, and narrow minded, it has an even more practical judgment. You are simply being self-centered. And lazy since your argument has no practical value outside of expediency.

@Anonymous: You say civil/domestic partnerships should be "good enough" for gays, first saying they're equal, then admitting that while they're not, they could be fixed and getting upset about the inequality is a matter of impatience. Then you come back around and say it's fair. Is it or isn't it?

You are easily confused, and often misinterpret (the examples of that have already been presented).

How difficult is it for you to understand my point? I don't know. It required understanding your capacity to understand and your personal adherence to intellectual honesty.

I'll present it again.

My argument is that Reciprocal Beneficiaries provide (or can provide) all the practical provisions that you are requesting in recognition of their relationship. Even you present a very simplified example of what you require in recognition which are well met by RB's.

And that allows marriage to recognize and provide for the equality which is required by men and women (and their children) in how children are created and raised.

How is that not fair?

You can argue whether or not it is equal between those that segregate and those that integrate genders until you are blue in the face. The simple fact is equating segregation with integration is not promoting equality.

I've yet to see you answer that point :)

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: You can't decide on what marriage is, while I've been consistent.

Laughable. I appreciate the attempt. But you've yet to show a real inconsistency on what I believe marriage to be. You've yet to even attempt to show it... :)

@Anonoymous: It's contract, issued by the state, accompanied by a ceremony that has no legal basis or bearing.

Even funnier. How many contracts do you know of perform vows which have no legal basis or bearing. Is that what you want in a marriage?

@Anonymous: Signing the marriage license is what makes a couple married - not trading rings in a church.

And, that was just painfully wrong. The issuance of a marriage license is then followed by a solemnization by a state officiator (a legally recognized clergy or state officer) who then signs that the marriage is official. It is then returned to the state to be registered and recorded.

What the married couple retains is then called the marriage certificate (or certification that a marriage has taken place).

One could argue that its not a marriage until the certificate is recorded, but that isn't the marriage or the wedding. The marriage date binding the couples is the time of the ceremony.

@Anonymous: Your definition of marriage is apparently convoluted, as you've yet to clearly explain what, for you, it is and isn't.

The word "clearly" is a judgment call of your own admission of confusion. I'm not responsible for your confusion.

@Anonymous: Regardless, your personal definition doesn't matter, and neither does that of any church, because individuals and religious institutions don't issue marriage licenses - the state does.

Do you really believe that? Because that is exactly why your instances of people mimicking a marriage ceremony above are not what I'm looking for as evidence of same-sex marriage precedent. I believe you took exception to that as incorrectly interpreting or something like that :)

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: You cite gender differences, societal norms, "deforming" marriage and other alarmist rhetoric, but none of that relates to why two consenting legal adults shouldn't be allowed to sign a marriage license.

It doesn't as long as they meet the expectation of that license, to provide for the equal protection and representation of each gender for the sake of the man, woman, and the children they create between each other.

@Anonymous: Do understand: Your values do not matter.

Wow! And before I thought it was simply implied rudeness. Now you want to be overt about it.

So what makes your values matter and mine not, that you disagree with them?

That is the reason we have democratic dialog. You many not appreciate the values I present, but apparently the public does. And I hope they continue to, because they are real equality -- real marriage equality.

@Anonymous: This is a legal issue, and it doesn't apply to you.

False, as someone who is married and expects the government's recognition and support in my rights and responsibilities as a husband to a wife who I have children with, it simply does apply to me.

I don't want my marriage recognized as something other than what it is, a true attempt at an arrangement equitable for my wife and my children.

To say it is just a contract simply is the same thing as removing that from my marriage in the eyes of the state.

@Anonymous: Are you so selfish to think that allowing same-sex couples to marry would somehow change the legal rights of heterosexual couples?

Funny, that isn't a matter of selfishness. Its a matter of honesty. Are you honestly saying that for all your attempt to tell me how much the values if marriage equality don't matter, shouldn't matter, and don't even exist, that I should accept that it won't happen if the state adopts your view about marriage?

Again, how hypocritical of you. Your own attack at my values gives me all the reason I need to believe that marriage equality is threatened by your goals.

@Anonoymous: If a group of people was trying to deny you legal rights, I'd hear you singing another song.

Yet the only reason you don't think the legal rights of men, women and children would be denied is because you don't find their equality as valuable or exist in the first place.

But that would be telling.

Jack said...

With respect to the Greek and Roman information you cited especially, I commend you on reading so much ancient history and primary sources. Is it necessary to find and study through each of these books in their entirety or can the references you made be found in a more convenient place i.e. a book or a website with the accumulated facts?

Anonymous said...

On Lawn: Every post from you is a new skew, and since you can't produce a coherent, tactful response without barely-veiled contempt let alone the pretense of civility and respect, you've earned the rare privilege of arguing with with the air. I stopped really reading what you had to say around the time you decided the ad hominem approach was logically sound (which was almost immediately), and your wildly-swerving train of logic has taken a few too many non-sequitur detours for my taste. Feel free to keep venting steam, however. Perhaps it's cathartic for you?

Jack:

Yes and no. Many of the primary sources I've cited can be found on the internet, but the relevant details I found by mundane reading. Here are a few links:

Cassius Dio's Epitome, Volume LXII. (The relevant text begins at 28)

Tullius Cicero's Phillipic, Volume 2

Martial's Epigrams, Book 12. (The relevant text begins at XLII)

Juvenal's Satire, Volume 2. (The relevant text begins at 132)

I don't have good link to the full text of the Codex Theodisius, but Steve Greenberg's Wrestling with God and Men mentions the specific law against gay marriages on this page and John Boswell's Christianity, Social tolerance, and Homosexuality does so here.

I certainly agree that primary sources are always relevant, and I've learned more from studying the Pentateuch and the Septuagint (alongside a good Mesopotamian history book) than the English-translated Bibles, because some Greek and Hebrew words, idioms and beliefs can't be translated with full comprehension. Classical history should have the same treatment, so best of luck with you reading.

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous: Every post from you is a new skew, and since you can't produce a coherent, tactful response without barely-veiled contempt let alone the pretense of civility and respect, you've earned the rare privilege of arguing with with the air.

So instead of correcting your mistakes, you are protecting them and running home with them. People familiar with my work understand there is no new skew here. Its what I've been saying for nearly a decade.

Many from your side of this debate are familiar with them and disagree with it, as I'm sure you want to continue to do. But none have done so standing on facts and reason -- just accusations devoid of any reference or verifiability like you did in an effort to close the conversation.

I've seen many arguments with many different styles, and one constant between them all. People who have issues with content will bring it up. When they don't, they make unqualified and unfounded accusations about style.

Which from here, your complaint seems to boil down to complaining about insolence, how dare I point out how your quotes don't match your claims. How dare I point out your intolerance towards how each man, woman, and child need the very marriage equality you want to tear down between them.

What but a sense of self-proclaimed superiority could at all be pricked by another's "contempt"?

As I've said in the past, the person crying in the corner may not be the victim, but the person caught trying to victimize others.

You've been shown to be wrong fair and square.

@Anonymous: I stopped really reading what you had to say around the time you decided the ad hominem approach was logically sound (which was almost immediately)

I doubted from the beginning that you ever really read what I had to say. I certainly read what you had to say. The success of my counter-arguments depends on understanding what you have to say.

Here's a tip, if you don't understand what someone is saying then don't complain about it -- ask for further clarification. You are never in a position to counter what you don't understand, and complaining that you don't understand it just makes you look narrow minded (at best).

Also, it isn't my duty as an advocate of truth and equality to protect your sense of self-assuredness and ego. When you are wrong, when you are saying my values have no worth, and when you make arguments that are unsound that casts a reflection on yourself. I only point that out in reflection of the truth.

@Anonymous: and your wildly-swerving train of logic has taken a few too many non-sequitur detours for my taste.

How easy is it for you to accuse, and how difficult it must be for you to prove it. Else why not even the slightest attempt?

By the way, you realize that your fallacy is a very big gamble -- especially on this forum. Because where you complain of confusion and such, all it takes is for the other readers to understand what you can't to disprove your assertion.

@Anonymous: Feel free to keep venting steam, however. Perhaps it's cathartic for you?

Hmmm, Didn't I just read about someone condemning the use of ad-hominem? Perhaps you and that person need to talk together and come to a better agreement on its effectiveness :)

Anonymous said...

On Lawn: I've stopped arguing the subject matter because it's become rather difficult for you to actually stick to a subject, and you seem much more interested in calling me uninformed and a liar than actually discussing anything. It's akin to trying to teach a lecture to a student body that would rather throw spitballs and jeer.

Regarding style: For a self-proclaimed activist - one with his own blog, making claims of reputability and reliability - your relationship with the truth can only be described as adulterous.

When it's conducive to your argument, facts may make a ceremonial appearance, but often those are regurgitated rote responses making a stretch at relevancy. Some are outdated, uninformed, or blatant denials of pertinent contradictions, but the intent is always to belittle your opponent, not to actually further a point.

As such, your positions are mercurial and nebulous, assuming corporeality never on consistent grounds nor to prove a point of your own, only to refute another's with condescension and bile, rather than logic. Claiming to "only point out the truth" may shore up your confidence, but when your argument can't hold water (or even decide what it's trying to say) you're blowing your own horn.

It's remarkably convenient for you to dismiss any difficult subjects as "lies," as that type of argument does the double duty of shifting your position to the offensive and vilifying your opponent. For someone who considers this sort of thing "work," you're distinctly unprofessional and shockingly petty. Arguing in this way may give traction in your community, among a consensus that already agrees with you, but when you're actually trying to prove a point, it's all just hot air.

And, for your own personal enlightenment, do look up the formal definition of the ad hominem fallacy. It might, at the very least, give you a few pointers as to where it actually applies and how you might utilize it more effectively.

Anonymous said...

On Lawn:

Well would you look at that! A cursory spin through your blog and personal comments reveals exactly what I predicted. You dispense with the venom toward anyone who disagrees with you, calling them some combination of an idiot and a liar, until they leave. I suppose if that works for you, keep it up, but it's charmingly pathetic that you take yourself seriously.

From the captial of good sense looking down, so long, and thanks for all the laughs.

On Lawn said...

@Anonymous,

I read through your last two comments, and I have to say I'm disappointed, but not surprised. You have to write your own commentary to assuage yourself, and it is no surprise that it is so self-serving.

@Anonymous: but when your argument can't hold water (or even decide what it's trying to say) you're blowing your own horn.

Let me just remind you who's arguments didn't hold water. I jumped in when you said:

Roman law, however, had actual marriages between same sex couples, using the exact same laws and ceremonies as heterosexual couples.

You even said that satisfied my requirement of a social expectation of the same-sex marriages as being the same as marriage.

Yet Roman law (which you never did quote in support) never said anything of the like. Without real law to quote, you showed instances where people acted under their own law (the quotes even show how extra-ordinary their occurrences were to the law of the day).

You quoted a historian who was talking about Nero purchasing a boy, had him castrated and pretend to be his wife. The point his commentary was that Nero was power-drunk ruler (a view not uncommon in history about Nero) saying, "Nero continued to do many ridiculous things."

On Lawn said...

As I mentioned, the practice of purchasing boys by rulers was also not uncommon. In fact is referenced in a curious place. In your next quote from Cicero about (not just about but against) Antonius, the very next sentence reads...

No boy bought for the gratification of passion was ever so wholly in the power of his master as you were in Curio's.

Was their relationship a marriage under the law? Cicero continues immediately with his own commentary on the action.

How often has his father turned you out of his house? How often has he placed guards to prevent you from entering? while you, with night for your accomplice, lust for your encourager, and wages for your compeller, were let down through the roof. That house could no longer endure your wickedness.

His wickedness? That doesn't sound like lawfulness.

Plutarch also mentions of this time:

For he was a dissolute man, given
over to all lust and insolency, who, to have Antonius the better at his commandment, trained him on into great follies, and vain expenses upon women, in rioting and banqueting. So that in short time he brought Antonius into a marvellous great debt, and too great for one of his years, to wit, of two hundred and fifty talents, for all which sum Curio was his surety. His father hearing of it did put his son from him, and forbade him his house.


Plutarch goes on to mention how he went from Curio to even worse companions, but I'll save that for people to read for themselves.

Martial and Juvenal's works are both satire (Juvenal's works even being named "Satires").

As the Wikipedia notes: The Satires are concerned with perceived threats to the social continuity of the Roman citizens: social-climbing foreigners, unfaithfulness, and other more extreme excesses of their own class.

And of Martial's Epigrams the Wikipedia notes: In these short, witty poems he cheerfully satirises city life and the scandalous activities of his acquaintances, and romanticises his provincial upbringing.

So lets sum up. The quote about Nero was presented as evidence of how power-drunk and ridiculous he was getting -- having purchased a boy slave to act as a wife.

The quote about Antonius shows what was to show how he had let himself get in an even worse position then the boy slave in allowing someone to parade him around as a wife.

The Martial and Juvenal quotes present the shame and excess of people undermining (rather then exemplifying) the moors of society of the day.

There is a common theme here, and it doesn't seem to be that these people were acting under, "Roman law [having] actual marriages between same sex couples, using the exact same laws and ceremonies as heterosexual couples." They are presented as riotous excess rather then common legal occurrences.

On Lawn said...

So Anonymous the question remains, if your commentary about our conversation is as you say, then why is it you that committed such verifiable errors in your argumentation and the evidence you presented to support it?

Your commentary presents your role here with self-assured superiority, questioning my insolence as a student throwing spit-balls.

So how did you make such obvious and sophomoric errors in your own argumentation?

Just curious, if it all is really as you say.

(By the way, thanks to a Latin scholar friend of mine who provided the quote from Plutarch who also expressed amazement at how wrong, yet self-assured you were in your arguments.)

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).