More to the point, they really had no way to separate marriage from child rearing. They could employ a few fairly ineffective methods to prevent or abort a pregnancy, but they had no way to procreate except through sex. Marriage, at that time, was focused on procreation and child-rearing, providing a lawful method to determine responsibility for children and the distribution of inheritance. We now have had the technology to both prevent conception and procreate without intercourse in safe and reliable manners for around 40 years. Partly as a result of those technological changes, we have already separated the necessity of marriage from child-rearing to a great extent. Contraception, in vitro fertilization, and surrogate mothers have demonstrated to society that children do not have to be the product of sex between a man and a woman. This may be good or bad, but it has already occurred separate from the issue of same sex marriage. Society has already acted on that recognition, with many heterosexual couples refraining from procreating children and many single people raising children without ever seeking to marry. Same sex marriage is simply a recognition of a social phenomenon that is already present in our culture, extending that phenomenon to a broader base of people. Homosexual couples may choose to procreate children outside marital sexual relations while other couples, heterosexual and homosexual, may choose to seek the legal responsibilities and privileges of marriage without engaging in procreation. That situation is already a reality. Using the word marriage to identify committed couples of any sexual orientation simply recognizes a reality that already exists–in language that has already begun to change to reflect that reality.
Prior to 1975, or so, the word marriage had only the meaning of a heterosexual relationship. Now, the word marriage is already understood to have a meaning that does not rely on heterosexual coupling or child-rearing. There is a struggle regarding how to employ the word in Law, but even that struggle is over in numerous places, while the meaning of the word continues to expand in scope.
I think the way you put it goes to far. I view history as a helpful series of experiments of people living together. I think it dumb to turn a blind eye to it. Should every society start from scratch. Is it not helpful that the way people dealt with things like theft and murder thousands of years ago can inform us today. Not that they need to be etched in stone, but I think we have much to learn from history. And as far as SSM, I find it quite a strong piece of evidence that we have zero instances of societies embracing it. Even non-Christian or pre-Christian societies. I actually believe that this is not the first time it came up in the history of man. I think that the ancient Greeks and Romans probably entertained the idea, maybe even tried it, given how accepting they were of homosexuality. But either they decided not to do it or it failed miserably and was abandoned. The same for countless other civilizations, known and unknown.
FYI the Bonobo, our closest relative and the only other ape to have face to face sex is a fully bisexual species.
SSM happened in the Roman Empire but you keep ignoring that, it also happened in the Americas, limiting yourself to Abrahamic societies is just begging the question.
There are also examples without legal status in our country, the term “Boston Marriage” was used for lesbian couples in the 19th and 20th Centuries.
But it doesn’t matter, it’s absence or presence in the western world is immaterial as to if it should be legal now.
I’ll rephrase, what would it change in your life if SSM was legal, what possible social benefit do we gain by making it illegal?
It helps to illustrate that you didn’t understand what I was getting at.
I understand the trouble you’re facing. You’re looking for an argument to substantiate a position that’s indefensible. But you should be able to see that “because it’s never been done before” isn’t an argument against doing something.
We might not be able to control lay terms, especially since there is such opposition by gays to offer or accept one. But we can—and should enshrine in our laws the notion that traditional marriage holds a special place. By the way, much of your post goes to an argument for gay people or gay couples being able to raise children. Just to clarify, I agree with that and am in favor of gays—alone or in committed relationships—being able to adopt.
Which makes the legal arena that much more important. For the reasons you raise, this was not an issue to be imagined pre 1970.
I’ll need a cite for that. But let’s say what you say is 100% correct. What is your point. It would just argue that homosexuality probably has a genetic component. Possibly in us. It might also argue for the notion that sexual orientation is not binary. I agree with ALL that. I just don’t find it a convincing argument as to why we should embrace SSM.
I’ll definitely need a cite for this. This would be news to all.
I’m not sure you understand what the term means. From Wikipedia:
Regardless, it was not a legal term. So, we have one more instance where there was not SSM. Good.
We protect the institution of marriage, giving it special status, thus making it a more desirable thing for young heterosexual couples to enter into and raise children. I view that as a very desirable and helpful thing for society.
Marriage already holds a special place; that is why it is important to expand the meaning in Law. As for “traditional,” there are numerous “traditional” marriages and you appear to want to hold on to only one specific meaning when society has already abandoned that usage–not just in lay terms regarding the Law, but in real terms regarding the function of the relationship.
I agree that the legal arena is extremely important. OTOH, prior to the sixteenth century, no one could imagine a world without slavery. Now we attempt to insist on it. Should we have held on to slavery because abolishing it had once been unimaginable? The world has already changed and the effort to stem that change through Law is merely punitive, seemingly based on nothing but a fear of change.
Homosexuality is present in every great ape. It is not as odd as you claim.
NO, I have pointed out several times that they were common in Rome until Christian emperors outlawed it in the 4th century, the also executed anyone in a SSM.
So should we make it illegal for sterile hetro couples to marry? How about women past menopause or men who have been sterilized?
Why should those non-reproducing couples have the same benefits and not homosexual couples?
As tempted as I am to call “cite?” on your rather interesting thoughts about SSM among ancient Greeks and Romans, I won’t, because the bigger question is this: what is it evidence of? If we stipulate that nobody in history has allowed SSM, what does this show us?
And thinking about it more, I will call, “cite?” on your idle speculation about Romans and SSM, for this reason: you continue to speculate that it failed miserably and was abandoned. See, that IS the sort of thing history is good for. We can look at what other people have actually done, and if it was a lousy idea, not do it. Or, if it worked especially well, continue it, or improve on it.
So if you can show a society historically that found SSM led to war, earthquake, famine, etc., then sure–that’s historical evidence. But saying it’s never been done before isn’t useful at all in this discussion.
Once we discard the historical/natural fallacies, then we can get to the peculiar idea that straight marriage needs to be enshrined.
So everything you’ve said up to this point about historical societies and the natural order is completely meaningless - it’s all just about terminology?
Aw, c’mon. That’s totally different. The ancient world was built on a foundation of traditional marriage. It’s not like slavery was important to ancient . . . civiliz…
Calling it something else does nothing to provide the people with 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits provided to those who are married.
Those are the benefits that are the reason people want to be “married” changing all those laws is next to impossible.
Those benefits, like hospital visitation, survivors rights etc… are the reason it is incredibly evil to limit SSM.
All because they happen to love someone with the same sensitive bits.
This is interesting, in that I don’t recall anyone bring ing it up before. I appears that the author had a slightly different take on SSM in ancient Rom than others. Here are two other excerpts from two different articles on Wikipedia. Evidently, Roman law never recognized SSM:
If it’s impossible it’s because gay rights advocates don’t push for it. That’s what they should be pushing for, as the “rights” argument is strongest with it. Once you want to change the traditional definition of marriage you get pushback and disdain. I must admit that after I participate in these threads I’m a little bit in the “fuck 'em” camp. But not in the way you think.