Why do people use the Greeks to justify same-sex marriage?

[Kane]

Many same-sex marriage supporters say that marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. They use the classic example of the homosexuality relationships within classic Greece. Well, I guess you can use that to justify same-sex marriage. However if you do that then I guess you can use the Egyptians to justify sibling marriage, right? At the height of the Egyptian empire even the great Pharaohs of Egypt married siblings. Does that make it right? So that is out of the question then, so why same-sex marriage out of the question isn’t?


Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

 

[rmcrobertson]

One suspects it's because of the reiterated, fallacious claim that a) Western civilization has always rested on heterosexuality; b) marriage has always existed only between one man and one woman, c) homosexuality is, "unnatural."

The traditionalist, conservative position is that most of our basic values, philosophies, ideas about democracy, etc., come from the Greeks. So...

 

[loki09789]

Many same-sex marriage supporters say that marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. They use the classic example of the homosexuality relationships within classic Greece. Well, I guess you can use that to justify same-sex marriage. However if you do that then I guess you can use the Egyptians to justify sibling marriage, right? At the height of the Egyptian empire even the great Pharaohs of Egypt married siblings. Does that make it right? So that is out of the question then, so why same-sex marriage out of the question isn’t?


Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

Marriage hasn't always been the sacred, religious, romantic thing that people have turned it into today. In the Greek culture, as well as Roman and Euro cultures for quite a long time (and honestly, most cultures at some point in history....), marriage was a contractual agreement.

It was the ancient equivalent of a business merger because it wasn't "FORD INC." but "FAMILY INC" where your land, your taxs, your crops....what ever were the source of your income and wealth so merging with another "FAMILY INC" was a way of securing more political/economic power over the long haul.

Marriage, as a contractual family merger was between men and women (though I don't know if it was exclusively defined as such) because it was the only way to ensure a chance at longevity because it would produce children. Another confusing thing that carries over from ancient traditions is the issue of incest and 'cousin.' Basically, according to ancient views, there was not a sister-in-law, but 'sister' when she married into your family. Some saw a marriage between a brother to his widowed wife as incestuous (Remember Hamlet's rants at times says this). Basically it wasn't scientific/DNA based at all. The issue of 'cousin' was also a practice where you would bring into your family lineage, therefore business wealth, a family that had been loyal/close to you and 'adopt' them/him as a cousin as a demonstration of that 'merger' as well.

Basically, in the ancient world, 'family' was defined differently than it is now. Back then, you could at times pick your family.

Homosexual relations, emotionally/physically intimate relations between same sex partners was condoned and encouraged among Greeks and even used by militaries because it was seen as a way of creating unit cohesion and "Espirit de Corps."

People are confusing 'socially accepted' with 'married' in this case I think.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

We don't believe in legalizing gay marriages "because the Greeks did it", but because gays are men and women who love each other, and deserve equal rights to other human beings.

In the end, your arguments against gay marriage always come down to bigoted views that compare homosexuality to aberrant, bizarre behavior, and as long as they continue to do so, your perspective will continue to come off as a bigoted perspective.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Many same-sex marriage supporters say that marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. They use the classic example of the homosexuality relationships within classic Greece. Well, I guess you can use that to justify same-sex marriage. However if you do that then I guess you can use the Egyptians to justify sibling marriage, right? At the height of the Egyptian empire even the great Pharaohs of Egypt married siblings. Does that make it right? So that is out of the question then, so why same-sex marriage out of the question isn’t?


Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

The above 3 posters gave good responses. Just to follow up on what Paul said, the ancient Greeks did not have same-sex marriages. What they had was a social system that allowed certain kinds of homosexual relationships.

And, as robertson said, people refer to the ancient Greeks, because in other venues, we respect a lot of things that came out of that culture.

But no-one is suggesting that we have the same social systems as they did. It is merely used as evidence that homosexuality has been socially sanctioned in the past.

Saying that *anyone* did *anything* in the past, and so it must be OK, is just silly.

Although if guys would like to oil themselves up and wrestle in the gym for fun, more power to them. Wait a minute....

 

[Kane]

Yes but that is the irony. Many who are for same-sex marriages always tell the tales of how there was homosexuality in one of the greatest ancient civilizations, and yet it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage because they never wed peoples of the same gender. Yet same sex marriage supporters bring that up. No one said it was a sin to be a homosexual. The point is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to use the word "married" in their union but no one said it is not okay for them to have a union. Even the Greeks knew same sex relationships shouldn't be considered marriage.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Yes but that is the irony. Many who are for same-sex marriages always tell the tales of how there was homosexuality in one of the greatest ancient civilizations, and yet it has nothing to do with same-sex marriage because they never wed peoples of the same gender. Yet same sex marriage supporters bring that up. No one said it was a sin to be a homosexual. The point is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to use the word "married" in their union but no one said it is not okay for them to have a union. Even the Greeks knew same sex relationships shouldn't be considered marriage.

Woah woah woah woah there.

You were previously arguing that "just because the Greeks did it, why does that make it OK today?"

Now you are saying, "The Greek knew homosexual relationships shouldn't be considered marriage."

Why base arguments on sexuality in today's society on what the Greeks did or didn't do?

They also had their brides lay in a quiet, tomblike room on their wedding night, lie totally still and silent and unmoving whilst the bride was deflowered by the groom, and then the groom left to go sleep in a big room with his buddies.

Do you think we should have those kinds of heterosexual relations, too?

 

[Nightingale]

Because marriage in ancient greece was simply to pass on property and stuff to one's heirs. Beyond that, there was no need for marriage. People didn't marry because they were in love, they married because of obligations to their family to produce heirs. Therefore, same sex marriage wouldn't make sense in that society, although same sex relationships were very common.

Now, the idea of marriage has been revised to include the concept of love, and doesn't always include children. Since a straight couple can be in love and not have kids, and a gay couple can be in love and not have kids, it seems that there is no reason to exclude them from the benefits of marriage, as heirs and property aren't really an issue anymore.

Oh...with regards to your comment about the egyptians marrying close genetic relatives. First off, it wasn't just the egyptians. It was the russians and many other royal families, with the idea of keeping royal blood pure. There are genetic reasons for close relatives not to marry. However, with restrictions and petitioning a court, depending on how close the blood relation, they are sometimes permitted to marry.

In 26 out of 50 states in the United States, and most other countries, first cousins can marry. Second cousins, third cousins, first cousins once removed, and any other cousins except first cousins can marry in all 50 states and every country in the world. The Roman Catholic Church lets first cousins marry.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The point is that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to use the word "married" in their union but no one said it is not okay for them to have a union.

Why not? Ought they not receive equal rights and protections under the Constitution? Please read my signature.

Here's a list of rights they're denied in states that forbid Gay marriages:

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; appointment as guardian of a minor; award of child custody in divorce proceedings; beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; burial of service member's dependents; certificates of occupation; consent to post-mortem examination; continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property; criminal injuries compensation; death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee; disclosure of vital statistics records; division of property after dissolution of marriage; eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; exemption from conveyance tax; exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; funeral leave for government employees; homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes;
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; inheritance of land patents; insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; legal status with partner’s children; making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; making partner medical decisions; nonresident tuition deferential waiver; notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; notice of probate proceedings; payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; proof of business partnership; public assistance from the Department of Human Services; qualification at a facility for the elderly; real property exemption from attachment or execution; right of survivorship to custodial trust; right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; right to change names; right to enter into pre-marital agreement; right to file action for nonsupport; right to inherit property; right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act; right to support after divorce; right to support from spouse; rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; rights by way of dour or courtesy; rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; sole interest in property; spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications; spousal immigration benefits; status of children; support payments in divorce action; tax relief for natural disaster losses; vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; in vitro fertilization coverage; waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

A little overwhelming, isn't it? Again, read my signature. Read the last line out loud.

Now I concede that Vermont is quite liberal with their notion of civil unions. Not all states will be so generous. I seriously doubt Alabama will ever go that route.

Even so, if we were able to somehow convince those down there in Jesusland to grant gays all the rights of marriage in a civil union-but we deny them the title-then we're merely playing a silly game of semantics.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Darksoul]

-Kane, let me ask you this: who owns the definition of "marriage"? Its a word, and as such is only given importance by the meaning we place on it. The past should be looked at as a learning tool. Let's take the Greek civilization, for example. Say we measure the success of that civilization by how long it lasted. It went on quite the while, but it did end. Did the proclivity towards homosexual behavior lead to its downfall? No. Will the gays and lesbians in the US lead to the downfall of the nation? I highly doubt it. Marriage is not trademarked, and for any individual or group to attempt to do so is blatant discrimination. Silly humans; we've come so far, yet still have a ways to go.


A---)

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Many same-sex marriage supporters say that marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. They use the classic example of the homosexuality relationships within classic Greece. Well, I guess you can use that to justify same-sex marriage. However if you do that then I guess you can use the Egyptians to justify sibling marriage, right? At the height of the Egyptian empire even the great Pharaohs of Egypt married siblings. Does that make it right? So that is out of the question then, so why same-sex marriage out of the question isn’t?


Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

kane kane kane

sometimes boys like boys......and girls like girls and they want to be married and have the same rights as the rest of us. are we so obtuse as a human nation to deny them a right as simple as happiness?

shawn

 

[Flatlander]

Many same-sex marriage supporters say that marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. They use the classic example of the homosexuality relationships within classic Greece. Well, I guess you can use that to justify same-sex marriage....<snip>...

Alright fine, marriage hasn't always been between a man and a woman. I guess when we legalize gay marriages because the Greeks did it let us also legalize sibling marriage because the Egyptians did it .

I think perhaps you may have been misinterpreting these arguments. Anytime I have seen an argument regarding homosexual marriage (here for example), any references to the "gay greeks" has usually been in response to the proclamations that homosexuality is wrong or dirty or bad, or other such negative framing. I believe the social norms of the Greeks to be a reasonable platform from which to compare our society. Recall that "western thought" is essentially derived from the intellectual achievements of the classical Greeks.

From Wikipedia:

Western thought

The term Western is usually associated with the cultural tradition that traces its origins to Greek thought and Christian religion. (See Western culture.) Cornerstones in this tradition are arguably:

• deductive reasoning,
• rule of law and
• monotheism.

Western society may be thought of as following an evolution that began with the philosophers of Athens such as Solon and Socrates. It continued through the Roman Empire and, with the addition of Christianity (which had its origins in the East), spread throughout Europe. During the colonial era, it became implanted in the Americas and in Australasia.

If you could provide a specific example of the context in which you had witnessed this greeky rebuttal, it would be easier to discern the user's motivations or reasoning.

 

[Kane]

Why not? Ought they not receive equal rights and protections under the Constitution? Please read my signature.

Here's a list of rights they're denied in states that forbid Gay marriages:

Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; appointment as guardian of a minor; award of child custody in divorce proceedings; beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; burial of service member's dependents; certificates of occupation; consent to post-mortem examination; continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property; criminal injuries compensation; death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee; disclosure of vital statistics records; division of property after dissolution of marriage; eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; exemption from conveyance tax; exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; funeral leave for government employees; homes of totally disabled veterans exempt from property taxes;
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; inheritance of land patents; insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; legal status with partner’s children; making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; making partner medical decisions; nonresident tuition deferential waiver; notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; notice of probate proceedings; payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; proof of business partnership; public assistance from the Department of Human Services; qualification at a facility for the elderly; real property exemption from attachment or execution; right of survivorship to custodial trust; right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; right to change names; right to enter into pre-marital agreement; right to file action for nonsupport; right to inherit property; right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act; right to support after divorce; right to support from spouse; rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; rights by way of dour or courtesy; rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; sole interest in property; spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications; spousal immigration benefits; status of children; support payments in divorce action; tax relief for natural disaster losses; vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; in vitro fertilization coverage; waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics.

A little overwhelming, isn't it? Again, read my signature. Read the last line out loud.

Now I concede that Vermont is quite liberal with their notion of civil unions. Not all states will be so generous. I seriously doubt Alabama will ever go that route.

Even so, if we were able to somehow convince those down there in Jesusland to grant gays all the rights of marriage in a civil union-but we deny them the title-then we're merely playing a silly game of semantics.


Regards,


Steve

Again, I personally don't care if homosexuals get the same economical benefits heterosexuals couples do. Putting the name marriage for them would actually offend most Americans. As long as they call it something else I think many Americans wouldn't have a problem with it. Most Americans including me think that marriage is when a man and a woman love each other and settle down and have kids (or not have kids). I don't think many of you are seeing this. Instead if trying to make one side happy and the other angry why not negiotate? Gays can have all their rights in unions just so long as they don't call it marriage. Both sides will be a little pissed (anti-same sex marriage will not like the idea of a more structuered union, while gays will not be happy that they did not call it marriage) but in the end both sides will finally put a rest to this debate on same-sex marriage.

 

[Shu2jack]

Again, I personally don't care if homosexuals get the same economical benefits heterosexuals couples do. Putting the name marriage for them would actually offend most Americans. As long as they call it something else I think many Americans wouldn't have a problem with it.

Who cares if it offends most Americans? What is the right thing to do? A lot of americans were offended when blacks and women finally received their legal rights.

Giving gays the exact same benifits as marriage, but calling it something else is rather silly. It is a marriage and people would be fooling themselves for thinking otherwise. Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.

Most Americans including me think that marriage is when a man and a woman love each other and settle down and have kids (or not have kids). I don't think many of you are seeing this.

We see it and we can understand why people hold onto this view. The point is most Americans thought nothing of killing off most of the Indians, using blacks as slave labor, denying women their legal rights, etc. Just because most Americans see something in a certain light does not make it right.

Instead if trying to make one side happy and the other angry why not negiotate? Gays can have all their rights in unions just so long as they don't call it marriage. Both sides will be a little pissed (anti-same sex marriage will not like the idea of a more structuered union, while gays will not be happy that they did not call it marriage) but in the end both sides will finally put a rest to this debate on same-sex marriage.

Because we tried that type of thing. We once had seperate schooling, public facilities, etc. for African Americans. The problem is that it encourages and leads to not only discrimination, but it is a detriment to society as hostilities flair. IT DOES NOT WORK.


I do have a solution to the issue though. Seperate marriage from civil unions. A marriage does NOT equal a civil union and a civil union does not equal a marriage.

This way our churchs are free to choose who they can marry, Pro or Anti homosexual. When a couple is married they would need to go to court if they want to make it a legal union, which would be easy to obtain. This way those of you who do not feel that gays should marry don't have to let them in your church.

This also allows the government to grant civil unions to everyone without offending anyone since it does not deal with anyone's religion.

 

[Nightingale]

"the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place"
-Chief Justice Warren, Brown v. Board of Education.

As long as gays' marriages are called something different, as long as they're separated in some way, there is no equality.

 

[loki09789]

It comes down to this:

1. "marriage" for the sake of legalization of same sex types is a LEGAL term to define a union between two mutual parties that want to create a family (also defined legally for tax/census purposes). Don't confuse this legal definition with the socio/religious/cultural definition that is wrapped in other meanings. This is the thing that is being disputed.

2. As citizens, if people want to enter into same sex marriages, what constitutionally defendable reason is there to keep that from happening? None. They are not illegal immigrants, they are not deviants (at least by the 'legal' standards if not yet by social standards.

3. As a citizen of this country, considering what and how you vote on issues and politicians partly comes from your own values as an individual but also consider whether you are supporting the infringement on another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I am not gay, don't have interest in gay issues, and don't agree with gay marriage from my personal perspective of 'marriage' in the Judeo/Christian context....BUT as a citizen, I can tell the difference between "marriage" as a citizen and "marriage" as a religious sacrament, and have to consider the CONSTITUTION when I am making decisions about such issues as much as I do my personal values.

 

[Nightingale]

very nicely put, loki