A question for opponents of gay marriage

[Captain_Carrot]

@magellan01

It was Adams. And there is much confusion about different translations from the time. Italian was an intermediary language, and not all copies in existence contain the same phrase. It looks like he did write it, but maybe not.

And in a treaty passed around that time, it was explicitly stated that the United States is not a Christian nation, and thus there is no cause for religious conflict.

[Miller]

@natalie_kiko

overall America is considered to be a christian country (in god we trust, god bless america, etc.)

Just FYI, but “In God We Trust” wasn’t added to the money until 1957. “Under God” had been added to the Pledge three years earlier, in '53. “God Bless America” is a little more vintage, having been written in 1918, but it’s never (to my knowledge) received any sort of government recognition, despite occasional moves to have it replace “The Star Spangled Banner” as the national anthem. At any rate, none of these had anything to do with the founding of the country, and a few of them would likely have been viewed as anathema by our founders.

[SteveG1]

@magellan01

It was Adams. And there is much confusion about different translations from the time. Italian was an intermediary language, and not all copies in existence contain the same phrase. It looks like he did write it, but maybe not.

My bad, I knew it was someone famous. At any rate, the version I read, made it pretty clear that the US was presenting itself as secular. Apparently, the “Musselmen” were concerned about how we would treat them and would we honor commitments, since they had seen the “bad side” of the christian countries of Europe.
But still, this is a country based on laws rather than religious edicts. Even when the Founders did talk about God, they seem to have been curiously nondenominational. The Creator, God, The Great Architect, etc, without giving the nod to any one particular faith.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@mswas

So in those cases the definition was never changed. It was still between a man and a woman, or a man and multiple women. Or in the rare case of polyandry, a woman and multiple men. I have yet to see an example of a historical case of legally recognized SSM let alone a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable and a universal right.

cite

Anthropologist Gill Shepherd explored female sexual relationships among Swahili Muslims in Mombasa, Kenya, and found that relationships between females were perfectly acceptable, as were relationships between men. Women are allowed to choose other women as sexual partners after they are married; so many such women also have a husband at home, or are widowed or divorced. Both sexes are open about their homosexual relationships, and it is considered normal. No one, unlike in Western culture, would think that homosexual relationships would damage a person’s piety or moral fiber.

In Nicaragua, the ideal for masculinity is “machismo”, and it is described as a man who is dominant, active, and violent. In the U.S., this is often viewed as a man dominating his female partner. However, in Nicaragua, this can also be applied to the sexual relationship between men. It is viewed as normal that men would have sexual attraction to another, and the act itself is not stigmatized. The “macho” dominates the other man, and he is therefore called a “cochón”. This role is made fun of, and is typically seen as passive and weak. Though the cochón is made fun of, he is never attacked for his role. There are no hate crimes against homosexual men, unlike in the U.S., probably because homosexual tendencies are seen as normal.

In Ancient Greece, same-sex relationships between men were considered the highest form of love; they were just as common and accepted as heterosexual relationships in America today.

In the Nuer culture, a woman can marry another woman, thus becoming the “father” of the children of the “wife”. As part of this woman marriage among the Nuer, there is a distinction between the pater and the genitor. The pater is the term given to the woman who takes on the “husband” role. The genitor is a friend, neighbor, or kinsman of the pater who is used to impregnate the wife of the pater, and help around the homestead with certain tasks deemed unfit for women. In order for the marriage to become official, the pater must pay a bridewealth payment to the wife’s lineage as would happen if a man were to marry a woman. This bridewealth usually consists of cattle or livestock. Aside from specific tasks given to the genitor, the pater takes on almost all social roles of a man. If wealthy enough, the pater is able to marry as many women as she likes. Furthermore, she is able to collect damage payment if her wives engage in sexual activity without her consent. In addition to this, she receives the bridewealth that would traditionally go toward the husband if one of her daughters is to marry. In addition to this her children refer to her as “father.” <ref.> Schultz A. Emily, Lavenda H. Robert. Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition.

[SteveG1]

@Captain_Carrot

No. “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Sex was not mentioned in that at all.

Once you get married, it’s over anyway

My cite? Married with Children

[Der_Trihs]

@Captain_Carrot

And in a treaty passed around that time, it was explicitly stated that the United States is not a Christian nation, and thus there is no cause for religious conflict.

The Treaty of Tripoli

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Valteron]

“*In Ancient Greece, same-sex relationships between men were considered the highest form of love; they were just as common and accepted as heterosexual relationships in America today. *”

Quite true. And the parents of a young Greek man might absolutely worship his male lover, if he was bright, handsome, rich and from a good family. But if Alexandros had come home one day in ancient Athens and told his parents that he wanted to marry his lover Nikos, his parents would have thought him crazy.

Let’s stop backing a horse that won’t run, people. Repeat after me: Marriage has been a matter between different sexes. . . . .UNTIL NOW!

We are not chained to the past people. Institutions can change. Society can change. Definitions can change. Laws can change. If not, you could buy President Obama instead of voting for him.

[Der_Trihs]

@Valteron

Let’s stop backing a horse that won’t run, people. Repeat after me: Marriage has been a matter between different sexes. . . . .UNTIL NOW!

Ahem.

In the Nuer culture, a woman can marry another woman, thus becoming the “father” of the children of the “wife”.

[Valteron]

If the argument “That’s how we’ve always done it” is a valid argument to preserve the status quo, against gay marriage, then the abandonment of pagan gods in favour of Christianity in the first to third centuries was a bad idea.

Come to think of it, so was the Protestant Reformation, I guess.

[Der_Trihs]

@Valteron

If the argument “That’s how we’ve always done it” is a valid argument to preserve the status quo, against gay marriage, then the abandonment of pagan gods in favour of Christianity in the first to third centuries was a bad idea.

Come to think of it, so was the Protestant Reformation, I guess.

You forget such newfangled ideas as agriculture and metal tools. Back in the Paleolithic, we smacked stuff with rocks, and we LIKED it ! It built character !

[Valteron]

We are talking about western culture, here. Do I need to preface every statement with that caveat because of the customs in some obscure tribe?

[waterj2]

@Der_Trihs

The Treaty of Tripoli

I’ve read that that particular passage was, for reasons no longer known, left out of the Arabic version of the treaty, which was the version that was legally binding, in case of discrepancies. The English translation, of course, is what Congress actually read and voted on, and the difference between the two wasn’t even known to the US until much later.

Some info is in the Wikipedia page here: Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

[Der_Trihs]

@Valteron

We are talking about western culture, here. Do I need to preface every statement with that caveat because of the customs in some obscure tribe?

It’s an important point, since it makes it clear we aren’t talking about something unique in human history. The antis throw around claims like one-man-one-woman being the foundation of civilization. They claim that it’s even against human biology, after all.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Valteron

We are talking about western culture, here. Do I need to preface every statement with that caveat because of the customs in some obscure tribe?

You are talking about western culture. My cites were posted in response to mswas, who said:

@mswas

I have yet to see an example of a historical case of legally recognized SSM let alone a society where it was considered perfectly acceptable and a universal right.

There are now, and have been in the past, such societies.

[mswas]

Snowboarder Bo You didn’t give any examples regarding SSM just a acceptance of homosexuality except the last one the Nuer culture. Is the Nuer culture similar to our culture in that it has a codified legal system?

[Captain_Carrot]

Oh, for fuck’s sake, stop moving the goddamn goalposts.

[magellan01]

@SteveG1

My bad, I knew it was someone famous. At any rate, the version I read, made it pretty clear that the US was presenting itself as secular. Apparently, the “Musselmen” were concerned about how we would treat them and would we honor commitments, since they had seen the “bad side” of the christian countries of Europe.

The quote did portray us as secular. One explanation though, is that Adams, or whoever put the words in that document (again, there is some confusion) was simply telling them what they wanted to hear. We had no ability to defend ourselves at the time, and our ships kept getting taken, goods stolen, and crew held hostage.

True or not, who knows? But we were at their mercy, having no recourse. This caused us to get serious about a fleet, which we did.

@SteveG1

But still, this is a country based on laws rather than religious edicts. Even when the Founders did talk about God, they seem to have been curiously nondenominational. The Creator, God, The Great Architect, etc, without giving the nod to any one particular faith.

That’s true to a point. A lot were Deists. Jefferson is one of the least religious of the founders, and while he didn’t accept the divinity of Jesus or believe in miracles, he did adhere to the Bible. But it goes too far if one were to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

[Captain_Carrot]

This country was founded on philosophical principles, not religious ones.

[Der_Trihs]

@magellan01

But it goes too far if one were to imply that we were not founded on Judeo-Christian principles.

You mean principles like blacks being three fifths of a human being ? Where’s that in the Bible ?

“Because the Founding Fathers said so” is neither evidence for something being a particularly “Judeo-Christian principle”, nor for it being right. Also, the question of whether or not the country was founded on “Judeo-Christian principles” is irrelevant, since in case you haven’t noticed religious freedom is quite legal these days.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@mswas

Snowboarder Bo You didn’t give any examples regarding SSM just a acceptance of homosexuality except the last one the Nuer culture. Is the Nuer culture similar to our culture in that it has a codified legal system?

I am not an expert on Nuer culture. I don’t know why you think I would be, since all I did was find relevant information researched and written by someone else and then posted it here so you could see it.

If you dispute the facts enumerated, please counter with someone else’s research which contradicts what I posted.

However, a little more research (done by clicking on the word “Nuer” on the wiki/Marriage page) shows that:

The Nuer are a confederation of tribes located in Southern Sudan and western Ethiopia. Collectively, the Nuer form one of the largest ethnic groups in East Africa.

Note the word “confederation”.

Their traditional political organization, presented to the outside world through the ethnographic work of E. E. Evans-Pritchard, has become a classic example of an indigenous heterarchical political structure without a single leader or leader group.

If you’ll scroll down the page a bit, you’ll see that Nuer hold positions including Vice-President, Ministers, Governors, and Senators within the Sudanese government.