Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Freeper's remarks: LOL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Dragonbreathp9d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:00 AM
Original message
Freeper's remarks: LOL
To: BAW

Whoever leads the SCOTUS team should remind them that gay marriage is NOT the same thing as interracial marriage. The later has existed throughout at least half of human history. Gay marriage was never considered even in ancient Rome.

8 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 12:25:04 PM by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>



Is HE a troll? lolololol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MikeNY Donating Member (242 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Here's the thing about gay marriage
It doesn't violate anyones rights, so inherently its legal. And laws that prohibit it are not Constitutionally sound, because the government was never designed to produce social engineering. It is the reason we have 90% of the problems we have today. Government sponsored social engineering. State-sponsored marriage, in and of itself, is just another entitlement. In the US, it is a tax entitlement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. It actually did exist in ancient Rome. And ancient Greece. And China.
It wasn't banned until the Christians took over, then Roman law forbade it, in 342 AD.

More Freeper Fail. yawn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasProgresive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Can you cite some references to that
Edited on Thu Aug-05-10 06:33 AM by TexasProgresive
" It actually did exist in ancient Rome. And ancient Greece. And China." That would help me in an ongoing discussion I'm in. Thanks.


Robert Heinlein wrote: You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their emotions quicker than you can convince one man by logic. It doesn't have to be a prejudice about an important matter either. Zebadiah Jones from If This Goes On AKA Revolt in 2100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. true, but

odds are the one man convinced by logic will be the one who is doing the swaying of the masses
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Sure.
Nero married one of his male slaves, as did at least one other emperor. There were grand ceremonies throughout the empire honoring both. In some provinces in ancient China there were same gender marriages, both male and female. In the Sudan in Africa two women could marry, and one was considered the husband, in that she was the "head of the household."

There's a really long discussion involved in any story about marriage, same or opposite gender. The short discussion is that we tend to think that all cultures have had "marriage" like ours, but that isn't true. We label a wide range of relationships as marriage, no matter what other cultures called them. For instance, in pre-Islamic Arabia and other nomadic/tribal cultures, a man could often marry as many women as he wanted, and a woman could marry more than one man. In some cases (and it's hard to know how common these were because these are cultures without writing) a man could be married to several women, each of whom could be married to several other men. These arrangements could vary based on religious and tribal customs, so it wasn't even a uniform code, more of a series of traditions. Muhummad changed that, requiring marriage to be between a man and up to four women (who could only have one husband), and according to some interpretations only one wife was allowed. No same gender marriage, though.

In places like Rome and Greece, which were large, multi-cultural empires comprising myriad customs and legal systems, marriage could be purely secular, or it could have a religious element, or it could have both, depending on the regions laws, customs, and religions.

So the question of what cultures recognized same gender marriage is as complicated as what marriage even is. Rome before Christianity had several different arrangements which resemble marriage, including a formal, secular type of marriage that allowed opposite or same gender marriages (obviously sex between men or between women was never a taboo in Rome or Greece, and was often considered a more pure form of love than opposite-gender sexual relationships, as you can read in Plato's "Symposium," for starters). These unions created a sexual, social, and business relationship--basically what our current idea of marriage creates--and had to be formally dissolved to end. It is impossible to know how common it was because the sources don't survive, and worse, because Christians over the Middle Ages destroyed any source that didn't reflect it's values (The same impetus destroyed all western works of Aristotle, too, and we only know of Aristotle in the west from texts the Muslims preserved). Rome also recognized religious styles of marriage--basically in Rome, if your culture allowed you to marry, Rome would recognize it.

That changed when Christians took over. In 342 AD the marriage code was altered to fit Judaic law, and marriage was redefined as between a man and a woman. Anyone in a same gender marriage was to be executed (yeah, the Christians were bastards, but let's face it, the Romans weren't very nice to them, either). That alone should prove that there were legal same gender marriages before 342, because otherwise there would have been no reason to outlaw them and punish those who had done it.

Ancient Greece didn't have a formal legal structure for marriages (at least not that's been discovered). They just sort of shacked up, but the arrangement was considered binding and had legal consequences, as far as we can see, whether it was "gay" or "straight" (which is another interesting discussion--there was no word for "gay" or "straight" in ancient Greek, and not really for ancient Rome, because sex and love weren't differentiated by gender the way we do now.) Many of these were same gender marriages.

Early Christians, before Constantine legalized Christianity, had no formal definition of marriage, even. Marriage seems to have been private, and often a matter of two people declaring they were married. It's hard to say for sure that there wasn't something more formal, though, since early Christianity was illegal for the most part, and therefore they wouldn't have advertised their marriage customs.

Anyway, that's all disjointed. Sorry. Wikipedia has a decent discussion of marriage, and of same sex marriages. John Boswell wrote a lot about homosexuality in the ancient world and medieval Europe, if you feel like reading long books on the subject. Some of that was stuff I picked up in books on religion or culture that aren't really about marriage specifically. You major in history, you get a lot of weird tidbits floating around up there. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tanyev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. And while we're at it, let's bring back gladiator fights and execution by animals, shall we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I can think of a couple of "Christians" I'd like to see thrown to the lions...
starting with newly-minted Catholic/serial adulterer Newt Gingrich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillStein Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Newt to the lions?
You kidding? All that saturated fat would be bad for the lions' hearts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mopar151 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Good for the hyenas though,
Leeps their coats nice and shiny. Maybe that 's why the media prostrated themselves at Newt's feet - waiting for dinner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beac Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. You're right,
Lions should dine better than on all that bitter, poison-filled flesh.

Maybe just a nice boiling in oil for Newtie? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Cool.
Better than bullfighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brewman_Jax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. History lesson from a freeper?
the same idiots that believe that The Flintstones cartoon was based on fact, i.e. recent freeper finding that humans and dinosaurs lived in the same time period.

I don't know why they bring up interracial marriage, they're mostly against that, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evirus Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
11. what about polygamy than?
weren't there like platoons of gay soldiers in Rome? or was it Greece?

but anyways but that logic polygamy should be legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BillStein Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. you're probably thinking of Sparta
Edited on Thu Aug-05-10 08:33 AM by BillStein
which was one of the most effective and fearsome armies of antiquity

*edited for grammar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-05-10 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. Why is anyone else's ability to marry any of their business?
I've never understood this and I never will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC