Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage!

[FrekeChild]

I think we should all be reminded that PS does not allow discussion of religion because it is against forum policies.

"Discussing religion or racial/ethnic issues are not allowed. It includes posting links/references to other sites/sources dedicated to religion or ethnic discussions. "

I believe it was first brought up in a historical and literary context...

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:40:55 PM
Author: FrekeChild
I think we should all be reminded that PS does not allow discussion of religion because it is against forum policies.

''Discussing religion or racial/ethnic issues are not allowed. It includes posting links/references to other sites/sources dedicated to religion or ethnic discussions. ''

I believe it was first brought up in a historical and literary context...

That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.

But believe me, I wanted to.

 

[FrekeChild]

You''re not alone.

 

[E B]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM
Author: elledizzy5

That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.

But believe me, I wanted to.

As did I.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM
Author: FrekeChild

I think we should all be reminded that PS does not allow discussion of religion because it is against forum policies.


''Discussing religion or racial/ethnic issues are not allowed. It includes posting links/references to other sites/sources dedicated to religion or ethnic discussions. ''


I believe it was first brought up in a historical and literary context...

Thanks for the reminder, I was on dangerous ground.

 

[swimmer]

Good reminder, I hope explaining separation of ch***h and state is OK? Hey, in Israel religion is politics and vice versus, they are hard to separate in the US too. But it is important to keep the peace here in ATW.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:53:10 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM

Author: elledizzy5


That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.


But believe me, I wanted to.

As did I.

What did I miss? Did she create a new thread that is already deleted or something similar?

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/13/2008 2:27:06 PM
Author: Galateia

Date: 10/13/2008 1:53:10 PM

Author: EBree

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM


Author: elledizzy5



That's why I didn't respond to Sandra's thread.



But believe me, I wanted to.

As did I.

What did I miss? Did she create a new thread that is already deleted or something similar?

I said thread but I should have said post. Whoops!

It's a post within this thread. If you go back a page, you can't miss it.

 

[FrekeChild]

I think it is swimmer. I think talking about it in a historical, literary, or abstract way is fine, but getting into specifics is not good.

Unfortunately it seems like it''s kind of hard to avoid over here in ATW....at least for the moment.

 

[galeteia]

Date: 10/13/2008 2:30:52 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/13/2008 2:27:06 PM

Author: Galateia

Date: 10/13/2008 1:53:10 PM


Author: EBree

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM



Author: elledizzy5




That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.




But believe me, I wanted to.

As did I.

What did I miss? Did she create a new thread that is already deleted or something similar?

I said thread but I should have said post. Whoops!


It''s a post within this thread. If you go back a page, you can''t miss it.

In that case, I certainly didn''t miss it. You ladies have more restraint than I do!

 

[Lauren8211]

I was just walking on campus and there was one man standing on a bench with a sign preaching to everyone that god hates them if they''re homosexuals.

I''ve never seen students at my school so worked up about anything. It was great to see so many people fighting back! They''ve been there for about 3 hours gathered right in front of the library.

I never understood why people stand up to spread their hate. Sad.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/13/2008 9:47:33 AM
Author: SandraPaneczko
Like I said before, This is America and I think people should have the choice. For Example.. Abortion, I am totally against it for religious reasons but not everyone in this country is religious and not everyone believes in good. I don''t think its right but does that mean you should stop someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with it? Gay Marriage.....My brother In law is Gay so I understand and this is what I tell him:

I don''t think your lifestyle is what god intended for us but I love you and I will treat whoever you choose to be with no different. I don''t agree with the lifestyle but that''s not my part to judge or to condemn anybody. The bible also say to treat others the way you want to be treated.

I think that Gay couples should be able to have some options, options that will give them health benefits from their partners job(they are living together right) and making medical decisions for one another. Being recognized beneficiaries/partners but as far as god goes... leave him out because he wants no part and I think that''s only fair. Most Gay people clearly don''t believe in the bible or it wouldn''t matter that they shouldn''t have the same institute as man and women and if any do then they would understand why they can''t. Any person who calls them self a priest should never marry a gay couple. It should not be done in a church of god. If they have their own organizations that has nothing to do with God or twisting the bible then let someone within there own unite them.

Can we stop bringing God into this? Thanks.

 

[MaggieB]

Arguments like this are insulting to me: "I''m religious, and God thinks such and such . . ."

I''m going to say very, very little here in an attempt to abide by the rules, but suffice it to say that all of the millions of religious people in the world do not think the same way. Jesus himself never spoke of homosexuality, and the six passages that do mention it are debated among religious scholars, particularly when read in the context of their original language.

My point is not to debate what is true or not true about Christian beliefs, and I will not respond to a debate started by another poster. My point is to ask that other posters read such condemnations as a judgment from one person and not an entire faith.

 

[ChargerGrrl]

This is great news- YAHOO for equal rights!

Oh, how I wish the US could be added to this list:

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.
Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.
Netherlands
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.
Norway
Became the sixth country to legalize same-sex marriage on May 11, 2008. (read more)
South Africa
South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.
Spain
Spain became the fourth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 10/13/2008 8:39:14 AM
Author: SandraPaneczko
I have to disagree. If people want to marry within their same sex, that's their deal but god should be left out of it. There is no getting around what the bible says and there are some who don't even believe in the bible, this is America and our country is all about freedom and making our own choices but like I said, God will not bless or recognize a marriage between two women or two men.' I think the problem is homosexuals want to be able to enter into the same marriage as a man and a women and that's just not possible. Two men can't stand in a church and make those same vows under god. Maybe by law or something like that would work.

Just my opinion

Fortunately, in this instance and in the case of MA and CA, god is completely left out of it. These rulings have NO effect on what churches do, who they marry, or anything like that. Anyone who insinuates that churches will be forced to marry same sex couples is wrong: it won't happen. What legalizing same sex marriages does is make it legal for same sex couples to obtain a marriage license from the STATE. To clarify, marriage licenses issued by the state have nothing to do with religion. In fact, they *can't* have anything to do with religion because of the separation between church and state. Legally speaking it is absolutely possible for me to enter into the "same marriage" as opposite sex partners would. Whether you personally think it is "the same" is not only irrelevant, but your own thing that you deal with on your own time, preferably leaving me out of it. What you think or feel is none of my business, just like my getting married is none of yours.

As far as churches are concerned, that's their own thing to deal with. Per forum rules I will not get into a discussion about religion, but I will say that quite a few churches will marry same sex couples. However, the marriage ceremony performed in a church or anywhere other than the basic civil service in a city hall is separate from the license issued by the state government. The two are unrelated other than that they share a name.

Now, it would be fine with me if everyone who was not having a religious ceremony didn't get a "marriage" license. I have no particular attachment to the word "marriage" other than that it is the SAME WORD used for other couples who are also not religious and not getting married in a church. If everyone who had a JOP ceremony got a "civil union" license, that would be fine. However, ONLY requiring that same sex couples get a different license is a breach of the equal protection clause [as was found in MA, CA, and CT] and cannot be allowed. Until everyone has to get a civil union, I will *NOT* settle for some wimpy "separate but equal" nametag for my marriage. I think we might all be able to agree that people do not consider civil unions or domestic partnerships to be the same thing as marriage. I don't know very many opposite sex couples who would gladly trade in their marriage for a civil union-- they know that it's just not thought of in the same way. [Plus, how ridiculously stupid does it sound to say "I'm 'civilly united' to my partner"?

]

 

[WishfulThinking]

Miracles- I couldn''t agree with you more about the child raising thing. I have never raised a kid, but the best people I have known in my lifetime were those who had a positive, caring environment within which to grow up. No matter who the environment was made up of- single parent, extended family networks, good friends... I think people need to be there for children. I am not buying the whole "opposite sex parents influence" argument. Some of the best mothers and fathers I know raised their kids as the primary caretaker and without a strong influence from an adult of the opposite sex. It doesn''t seem to have damaged them in any irrevocable way.

AGBF- Thanks for the kind words! I am so excited to be marrying S, even though it is looking like we might have to wait to be legally married anyways. Nov. 4th will be a trying day for sure, but we''re hoping maybe against hope that ss marriages will remain legal in CA and we will be able to marry this summer as planned! We are very much in love, and lucky to have each other.

I''m sorry to hear about the troubles you have had in your own marriage. It seems like so many people, my parents included [now divorced] struggle and flounder through trying times over the years. I am not sure there is any one way for marriages to be. I think the idea that people have in their heads about what marriage "should" be is so problematic, and sets everyone up for failure. The "ideal" family structure of the 1950s was based on white, middle-class families and pretty much historically inaccurate as portrayed in contemporary conversations about marriage. It''s almost impossible now to live up to that ideal right now based on finances alone, and I can''t imagine how people looking for that perfect ideal will ever be happy. Boxing people in and expecting that there is one way to go about marriage that is "right" or superior just hurts everyone, whether telling people who and when they should marry, or when and in what circumstances they ought to divorce.

MoonWater- Thank you. You are absolutely free to copy and paste anything I have written here or in the other marriage equality thread discussing CA. I have... a lot of practice debating this topic. Although I am naturally a very political person, it''s basically impossible to attempt an apolitical life when your love is up for public debate so often.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Let me tell you a true story of a classmate of mine. In India, the lowest group of people are the untouchables. They cannot vote, they cannot enter most temples, they have almost no rights at all; they are practically slaves. Girls that grow up there either spend their lives living in the streets and starving, being beaten and mistreated by the higher classes or the pretty ones are sold as sex slaves to higher class men.
Two well off, well educated women who happen to love each other cannot adopt in the US at that time so they go to India. They find a beautiful little baby girl and take her home. She goes to the best private schools, has lots of friends and no one teased her about her moms.
Fast forward to today. My friend is about to graduate from a prestigious college with honors. She is training to be a neuroscientist and may one day save lives. She is gorgeous and has her pick of great guys.
If she weren’t adopted, she would have been sold to a much older man as his mistress, essentially being his slave, and producing children for the man until he got bored and sent her and the children to live on the streets. It happens a lot in India.

All of that, just because she had gay parents who adopted her.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:53:10 PM
Author: EBree

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM

Author: elledizzy5


That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.


But believe me, I wanted to.

As did I.

Me too!

 

[Black Jade]

Sandra, if you are still here--
My advice to you would be to leave this discussion. It isn''t really a discussion. It''s an excuse to bring certain opinions to the forefront. Do a search and look at former threads on this board begun by AGBF. You can also search WishfulThinking''s name. They need someone to take the traditional and conservative point of view so that they can bring out their pre-arranged arguments against this way of thinking and make tradition and morality look outdated, foolish and if they can manage it (Wishful is good at this) --cruel. This is necessary if they are going to promote the sort of radical social change that they want.

I understand from Freke Child''s post (you should do a search on her name, too) that religion is not allowed on this board. I suppose because they do not wish people to proselytize. There are other things that people proselytize, however, besides religion.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 10/13/2008 11:35:33 PM
Author: Black Jade
Sandra, if you are still here--

My advice to you would be to leave this discussion. It isn''t really a discussion. It''s an excuse to bring certain opinions to the forefront. Do a search and look at former threads on this board begun by AGBF. You can also search WishfulThinking''s name. They need someone to take the traditional and conservative point of view so that they can bring out their pre-arranged arguments against this way of thinking and make tradition and morality look outdated, foolish and if they can manage it (Wishful is good at this) --cruel. This is necessary if they are going to promote the sort of radical social change that they want.

I understand from Freke Child''s post (you should do a search on her name, too) that religion is not allowed on this board. I suppose because they do not wish people to proselytize. There are other things that people proselytize, however, besides religion.

I don''t recall you arguing that gay marriage was amoral and/or untraditional, BlackJade. All I recall are your nonsensical arguments that marriage is for protecting a woman in her childbearing years, so gay people shouldn''t get married.

As for morality, most people would agree that baseless discrimination and bigotry are amoral. And as for tradition, many traditions are amoral. For instance, African-Americans were traditionally slaves. Should we have kept slavery going based on tradition?

Just because your arguments have been proven to be illogical and ridiculous doesn''t mean this isn''t a discussion. It''s just a discussion in which your thinly veiled bigotry and flimsy arguments against gay marriage were shot down easily by people more knowledgeable than you.

 

[FrekeChild]

Date: 10/13/2008 11:35:33 PM
Author: Black Jade
Sandra, if you are still here--
My advice to you would be to leave this discussion. It isn't really a discussion. It's an excuse to bring certain opinions to the forefront. Do a search and look at former threads on this board begun by AGBF. You can also search WishfulThinking's name. They need someone to take the traditional and conservative point of view so that they can bring out their pre-arranged arguments against this way of thinking and make tradition and morality look outdated, foolish and if they can manage it (Wishful is good at this) --cruel. This is necessary if they are going to promote the sort of radical social change that they want.

I understand from Freke Child's post (you should do a search on her name, too) that religion is not allowed on this board. I suppose because they do not wish people to proselytize. There are other things that people proselytize, however, besides religion.

I cannot even begin to express how uncomfortable being "researched" for whatever your purpose is, makes me feel. In case you hadn't noticed, AGBF posted the original post because it is part of the current events.

Just because I'm a liberal and cited years of my own studying and research that contradicted your views, does not mean that I approve or disapprove of gay marriage. I never once stated my opinion on it. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but the judgment and condemnation behind your post leave me feeling extremely uneasy. Especially because I was singled out in a manner that was uncalled for.

Religion is not allowed because it is a controversial subject that can cause hard feelings and divide our (mostly) peaceful community. This is the same reason that race and ethnicity are not discussed here.

I hope that you are not as close-minded in real life, and certainly give those around you will differing opinions the benefit of the doubt, because in this case, you have not.

ETA: Besides, if you "research" me, you're going to find out I'm a LIW, who loves shoes, also loves gemstones, and is agnostic and liberal. And if you're paying close attention I also have a mother who is dying from cancer. There. Now you have no reason to research me.

 

[iheartscience]

Hey Freke-if you do research on BlackJade you'll find that she tends to post here only on threads involving gay marriage and other controversial topics, and then runs and hides when her pathetic arguments are shut down immediately.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/14/2008 1:05:27 AM
Author: thing2of2
Hey Freke-if you do research on BlackJade you'll find that she tends to post here only on threads involving gay marriage and other controversial topics, and then runs and hides when her pathetic arguments are shut down immediately.

I try to take posters at their word(s). BlackJade said she was a history professor, so I took her as one. I will continue to treat her as one unless she proves not to be, regardless of her behavior on this board, although it is nice to know what that behavior is.

I wouldn't panic about being "researched", Freke. Who comes to Pricescope except diamond lovers? It isn't as if we are a group of people engaged on some iinteresting cultural or political task!

The idea of looking me up is even more ludicrous than looking you up! I have been married to the same man for nearly 32 years and it was the first marriage for each of us! If anything, I have been too conservative to get a divorce when other women would have sought one because I revered the institution of marriage, particularly when children were involved (and my husband and I are parents). How much more traditional can you get in your personal life?


Deborah

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 10/14/2008 1:05:27 AM
Author: thing2of2
Hey Freke-if you do research on BlackJade you''ll find that she tends to post here only on threads involving gay marriage and other controversial topics, and then runs and hides when her pathetic arguments are shut down immediately.

Yes, research me. What''s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Let me know if you find ME on the other gay ''marriage'' or ''other controversial threads''. You WILL find me in a discussion with thing2of2 and Frekechild once before--which wasn''t controversial to begin but became so when these two began promoting teenage sex as a good thing to be encouraged. I immediately left, yes.

My viewpoint is, I am on this board to look up diamonds. Once in a while, I look at the other topics to see what''s being discussed and have dipped in a few other subjects when it looks as if there might be an interesting discussion. However, having been on the internet a long time (though on this particular board only about a month, with very few posts--you can look THAT up) I know that there is such a thing as a provocateur. Someone who is bored at work, or doesn''t have much of a life for whatever reason and hangs out provoking fights with others. Or wants to make a particular point. So yes, I put people''s screen names in the search engine when I''m on a listserv to check if they have a pattern with their posts. And then I don''t discuss things further with them, if they do.

I don''t have time to waste on an endless circular round of posts with people who have an agenda and/or all kinds of time, which I don''t. Also, since I was a professor, I am impatient with illogic, lack of evidence and poorly presented information gained from watching pop history shows and reading quickie newspaper summations of these issues. But I really don''t have the time, or inclination to teach people what is proper evidence and what isn''t, and how to research properly, as I used to do with my students, and still do for my own books, articles and presentations. There have been some people who participated in this discussion who seemed sincere, although they had a different point of view (I think of the lady with the Japanese husband). But the discussion started to get strange very soon. At that point, I searched on people''s names and found what I found. So I was gone. I''m sorry that I got curious as to why the thread was still going on a couple of days later and clicked back on. Too much idle time myself, I guess, with my husband out of town.

Fortunately this is not Communist China or Russia under Stalin and you can''t arrest me and put me in re-education camp and force me to stay with topics until I agree with you. I guess those who enjoy the discussion will stay. I was not one of them.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/14/2008 7:53:56 AM
Author: Black Jade

I am impatient with illogic
...
I guess those who enjoy the discussion will stay. I was not one of them.

Is "illogic" a word? I suppose it must be since you used it. I had to look up another word you used in an earlier posting because I had never seen it before. It wasn't in normal dictionaries, but I found it on the 'net. Apparently it is a newly minted modern term and I cannot fault you for knowing the current slang. But what amazes me is how you are able to continue to post in this thread, answering everybody who has provoked you and all without having stayed in the discussion! By the way, the expression is, "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander".

Deborah

 

[Black Jade]

Some notes on history, if anyone cares:

Homosexuality has existed in all of human history and been regarded in different ways in different societies at different times. The Greek in the Classical Age are the most famous society who actively promoted it, especially male homosexuality. Although female homosexuality was not discouraged either--Sappho lived at this time and wrote what was considered to be wonderful poetry about her love affairs with women. Can''t tell you if her poems were wonderful or not--only fragments are left.

Many works by Greek male literary figures remain however, giving their point of view on this, the most famous probably being the Plato''s Symposium (or Banquet). This is well worth reading, from a literary as well as a social history point of view. The ideal Greek relationship was between a grown man and a pubescent teenage boy. (It is interesting that in a great deal of male homosexual literature, of all times, this is the ideal relationship.) It was supposed to be a learning experience for the boy. Not just the obvious--he was supposed to become a better person, and even a better fighter because of such a relationship. One Greek, it slips my mind who it was, but you can look it up, proposed an army of lovers. They would be fiercer fighters because of their physical and emotional relationship with each other.

The Greeks thought of homosexuality as a ''higher'' kind of love (a theme that has been repeated ever since by homosexuals in literature and ''scientific'' works--for instance, in some of the German writers at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century), however, unlike some on this board, they were realistic about the undisputable biological fact that homosexuals can''t procreate. With each other. They were always fighting each other and needed a large population for soldiers. So marriage, between men and women, was MANDATORY in Greek culture, and they did not mix it up with their other sexual interests. Interestingly, the average age for a bride was extremely young. Like 12, or 13. There is literature about the little girls going to their weddings clutching their dolls. I personally think its interesting that girls of this age are not so different looking than teenage boys--but that''s my personal opinion, you won''t find that noted in any literature. The girls were married, the men made them pregnant, as lots of men with homosexual preferences have done throughout history, and as wives, the women stayed cloistered inside the home. They were the ideal ''breeders'' I guess, while the men were free to pursue athletics, literature, war and whatever else they wanted with the other men who were REALLY important to them.

There was never any suggestion that it might be reasonable for two men to marry,although, as I stated before, this was the most famous homosexual friendly culture, ever, and remains an ideal for people who think homosexuality is not only a good thing, but actually, well, an IDEAL.

The Classical Greeks fell, not because of anything to do with their sexual preferences, but because they just simply could not stop going to war with each other. However a great deal of not just toleration, but promotion of male homosexuality remained the norm in Hellenistic culture. Alexander the Great, who spread Hellenistic culture throughout the known world, followed the Greek pattern of preferring to have sex with men, and forming his strong emotional ties with them (I should probalbly say, sex with boys. That was what the Greeks openly said). As a great conqueror however, he needed an heir and of course got married--to a woman. He had an heir, but when he died rather suddenly in his early thirties, his baby son and wife were murdered.

Rome was the next important world power. The original Romans were very Puritanical with a strong belief in family--patriarchal family. The word ''patriarchal'' comes from them, and the Roman father had all the power in the family to a degree that is somewhat startling to read about, and which is actually somewhat unusual in human history (although you would think from reading a lot of ''history'' nowadays that relies on theories rather than original sources that all of former human history was exacty like early Rome). Homosexuality was not well looked upon by these people. Nowadays we have been trained to think that people who don''t think homosexuality is the greatest thing since sliced bread all persecute and kill homosexuals, that there is no in between (please note, I am not saying that homosexuals have not ever been persecuted), but even though the very traditional Romans did not agree with it, there was no actual persecution of homosexuals (they saved that for Christians. At a later period). However, once the Romans conquered the Greeks,and also other people in the world, obviously, their ideas changed. They acquired a taste for luxuries, silk clothes and jewels and comfortable houses. They adored Greek culture, the way some Americans adore the French, and there began to be a lot of fashionable homosexuality, at least partly because it was so ''Greek''.

There were some modifications, though. In Rome, you hear of relationships between two grown men, rather than just a grown man and a teenage boy (although there was some of that, too, e.g. the Emperor Hadrian and Antinous). These were very companionate relationships. (Sorry not to say anything about lesbians, but they just are not documented in the same way).

Anyway, by the Augustan age, homosexuality was so well-looked upon in Roman society that if anyone before us would have thought of inventing such a thing as homosexual ''marriage'' it would have been them. But they didn''t. Again, the same very practical reason. They were, by this time, having the problem that Europe and most of the developed world has right now--negative population growth. Romans were just not marrying, and not having children--a situation that seems to have developed because Roman women lost so independence and power upon marriage that they just refused to tie the knot. (There were several types of Roman marriage, similar maybe to our religious marriage, our civil marriage, our common-law--but women weren''t interested in being involved in any of them). From the first century A.D. on, the Roman government started trying all kinds of incentives, and even passing laws, trying to convince men to marry women and HAVE KIDS but were remarkably unsuccessful. (When people did marry, there was a very high rate of divorce.) They certainly were not going to come up with the option of homosexuals marrying, because there was no point. Homosexuals jsut had the same kind of free-floating affairs that everyone else in Rome was having, heterosexuals too. Nobody disapproved, though a few people, like Juvenal, made fun. (BUt he made fun of everything and everyone).

Until of course the wierd little Asiatic sect of Christians came on the scene, developed out of Judaism, which was equally wierd to the Romans and always causing trouble for them (hence the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70). The
Christians disapproved of a lot of things: of the main Roman entertainment, the games in which people fought each other and watched wild animals eat people alive, of the Roman habit of leaving babies, especially girl babies, by the side of the road for animals to eat if they were unwanted; they didn''t object to slavery, but thought that you should treat your slaves as if they were other human beings; they believed that poor people were as valuable as rich, and believed that rich people had a responsibility to take care of their poor brothers and sisters, etc. etc. They also had a strong idea of exactly what marriage was. A man and a woman, monogamous and faithful for life, mutually submissive to each other. They were not in agreement at all with the free Roman morals in general, including the free homosexuality.

Which they did not, however, single out. It''s mentioned in the New Testament many times, but always in a list of lots of things that God can help people change from, once they are become changed people in Christianity. The idea is gone, that existed in traditional Judaism, that homosexuals should be executed (the Jews in Old Testament times would execute heterosexuals caught in adultery also) but certainly the thought that they can and should change (as people should change from a lot of other behaviors) was very alien to the Romans, as it has been to many people since. It is always interesting to me that people say that Paul, who is the person that discusses this in the most detail, didn''t understand homosexual relationships between equals and that that is why he had the ideas that he had. He was a sophisticated man, travelling through the cosmopolitan Greek-speaking cultures in the Mediterrenean and Asia Minor, and equal homosexual relationships that were well-accepted by society were the only kind he saw.

But that is not why Rome persecuted the Christians. They were persecuted for refusing to worship Caesar as God. They were very heavily persecuted and stayed underground because of it and their ideas had no effect on the mainstream Roman culture for the next three hundred years, and that culture continued much as before. Even though Romans weren''t having (many) babies, so many people from the Empire came in and became Roman citizens that the society continued to flourish. Eventually, however Christianity became first accepted, and then the official religion of Rome. By this time, however, Roman society was in serious decline. The barbarians would, from Northern Europe, would come in and sack Rome and then finally destroy it in 476 A.D. The Christian church would be what salvaged what remained of Roman civilization--of any civilization during the Dark Ages that followed. These barbarians had interesting ideas on marriage, from what I know of them (mostly from reading Gregory of Tours)--women were mostly captured and forced into it and then got rid of when the men were tired of them. I have no idea what they thought about homosexuality, maybe someone else on the board knows.

The next time that I know of when homosexuality was widely practiced and well-looked upon among the social elites was in Renaissance Italy, especially Florence. The church was opposed to it and quite powerful (although laughed at by all the elites) so there would not be a question of creating a new kind of marriage.

Ancient China is a whole other, very interesting culture. From what I have read, up until the twentieth century, when of course Mao came down on it very hard, homosexuality was a sort of side-line in the culture. I don''t know if an extemely common one, but there is certainly mention of it in literature, including very ancient literature. Again, like the Greeks, Chinese traditional culture expected that everyone would marry, that is, that men would marry women (with the additional wrinkle that they were polygamists in the upper classes, where they could afford it). Having children was very important. However, if a married man, even one with several wives, wanted to have affairs with other men (again,more commonly, boys) n one much cared, so long as he had done his duty and procreated. There are quite a few famous stories of homosexual love affairs, the one that comes to my mind is the Qian Long emperor and He Xin. He Xin was a very beautiful man, who apparently resembled the emperor''s first love who had died (she had been a woman). He had a very long term affair with He Xin (who married several women himself by the way) which was very much objected to, not because He Xin was male, but because he was very dishonest, put all his cronies in power and stole really vast amounts from the public treasury.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 10/14/2008 12:53:18 AM
Author: FrekeChild

Date: 10/13/2008 11:35:33 PM
Author: Black Jade
Sandra, if you are still here--
My advice to you would be to leave this discussion. It isn''t really a discussion. It''s an excuse to bring certain opinions to the forefront. Do a search and look at former threads on this board begun by AGBF. You can also search WishfulThinking''s name. They need someone to take the traditional and conservative point of view so that they can bring out their pre-arranged arguments against this way of thinking and make tradition and morality look outdated, foolish and if they can manage it (Wishful is good at this) --cruel. This is necessary if they are going to promote the sort of radical social change that they want.

I understand from Freke Child''s post (you should do a search on her name, too) that religion is not allowed on this board. I suppose because they do not wish people to proselytize. There are other things that people proselytize, however, besides religion.

I cannot even begin to express how uncomfortable being ''researched'' for whatever your purpose is, makes me feel. In case you hadn''t noticed, AGBF posted the original post because it is part of the current events.

Just because I''m a liberal and cited years of my own studying and research that contradicted your views, does not mean that I approve or disapprove of gay marriage. I never once stated my opinion on it. I am sorry you feel the way you do, but the judgment and condemnation behind your post leave me feeling extremely uneasy. Especially because I was singled out in a manner that was uncalled for.

Religion is not allowed because it is a controversial subject that can cause hard feelings and divide our (mostly) peaceful community. This is the same reason that race and ethnicity are not discussed here.

I hope that you are not as close-minded in real life, and certainly give those around you will differing opinions the benefit of the doubt, because in this case, you have not.

ETA: Besides, if you ''research'' me, you''re going to find out I''m a LIW, who loves shoes, also loves gemstones, and is agnostic and liberal. And if you''re paying close attention I also have a mother who is dying from cancer. There. Now you have no reason to research me.

I am really sorry that your mother is dying of cancer. My father died of cancer and it is no fun, you are in for a tough time and I am sorry. I hope you can find something that comforts you.

 

[Black Jade]

Need to correct something in my long post, don''t know if anyone read it or not, but if you did, you should know that the Chinese Emperor''s lover was He Shen, not He Xin.

 

[AGBF]

Your posting on history was very interesting, BlackJade. I did care to read it, since you wondered if anyone would. I know nothing about Eastern history, but from what little I know about ancient Greek and Roman history (I had to teach that in high school, but it is not my field), you are right on target about the Greeks. My husband, although not an historian, is a scholar of ancient Greek and Roman languages and culture and he has described the homosexual relationships to me in much the same terms which you have used. (He, also, is opposed to same sex marriage. I do not know if that is coincidental or if the tendency to regard same sex marriage as harmful runs rampant among people who study ancient history.)


You are clearly a bright and learned woman. When you write about what you know, rather than just throwing off your opinions like darts, you are very interesting to read. I would enjoy your staying around and contributing to threads here. I think we are all sufficiently logical to appreciate you.


Deborah

 

[pennquaker09]

Date: 10/13/2008 1:42:17 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 10/13/2008 1:40:55 PM

Author: FrekeChild

I think we should all be reminded that PS does not allow discussion of religion because it is against forum policies.


''Discussing religion or racial/ethnic issues are not allowed. It includes posting links/references to other sites/sources dedicated to religion or ethnic discussions. ''


I believe it was first brought up in a historical and literary context...

That''s why I didn''t respond to Sandra''s thread.


But believe me, I wanted to.

I''m on the verge of tears . . .