Perry signs pledge backing gay marriage ban

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Reread what I wrote. Civil unions are a contract between any two people to unite as one entity. Marriages are a uniting into a holy matrimony.

yes but non religious people still marry, or are you saying they aren't really married they only have a civil union as they aren't religious?

[luckytxn 2,265]

yes but non religious people still marry, or are you saying they aren't really married they only have a civil union as they aren't religious?

They will have a civil union. If they want a traditional marriage then go to church. If they are Atheists then why go through the trappings of religious customs? If they choose to say they are married then they can do so. Marriage has always been to unite a man and woman as one to settle down and have a family. It is a religious custom. Atheists can still unite and do all that in a civil way and call it what they want but of they are truly Atheistic then why go through a religious uniting?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They will have a civil union. If they want a traditional marriage then go to church. If they are Atheists then why go through the trappings of religious customs? If they choose to say they are married then they can do so. Marriage has always been to unite a man and woman as one to settle down and have a family. It is a religious custom. Atheists can still unite and do all that in a civil way and call it what they want but of they are truly Atheistic then why go through a religious uniting?

I think most people would agree that marriage exists beyond the boundaries of religion. That said what about religions that allow same sex marriages?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

They will have a civil union. If they want a traditional marriage then go to church. If they are Atheists then why go through the trappings of religious customs? If they choose to say they are married then they can do so. Marriage has always been to unite a man and woman as one to settle down and have a family. It is a religious custom. Atheists can still unite and do all that in a civil way and call it what they want but of they are truly Atheistic then why go through a religious uniting?

By the way this kind of indicates that only Christians can "marry" as a Jew or Muslim does not go to church.

Moreover, does any state require that a wedding occur in a church as that might support your state stance on religion and marriage

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,265]

By the way this kind of indicates that only Christians can "marry" as a Jew or Muslim does not go to church.

Moreover, does any state require that a wedding occur in a church as that might support your state stance on religion and marriage

Never said that or even meant that. You are reading stuff not even there. States issue what are called marriage licences and marriages are traditionally are between a man and woman to unite in holy matrimony. It is up to the religions of the two if they want to be married and how in a holy matrimony. States are intruding into religion by saying they have to get a marriage license to unite. It is improper for the states to issue anything called a marriage license. If anything they should be called civil union licenses. There is a mindset that marriages are only between a man and a woman and this is because of the religious angle. For the state to say that a marriage can be between a same sex couple then they are intruding into the religions that forbid it. States should not be in the business of marriages as that is a religious component. Now the state can if the people agree to it to issue civil unions. After the two receive a civil union then if they want a religious marriage then they should then go to their respective church or religious and do their religious duties as they see fit. A church should be able to unite any into their faiths marriages without the states intrusion at all.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Never said that or even meant that. You are reading stuff not even there. States issue what are called marriage licences and marriages are traditionally are between a man and woman to unite in holy matrimony. It is up to the religions of the two if they want to be married and how in a holy matrimony. States are intruding into religion by saying they have to get a marriage license to unite. It is improper for the states to issue anything called a marriage license. If anything they should be called civil union licenses. There is a mindset that marriages are only between a man and a woman and this is because of the religious angle. For the state to say that a marriage can be between a same sex couple then they are intruding into the religions that forbid it. States should not be in the business of marriages as that is a religious component. Now the state can if the people agree to it to issue civil unions. After the two receive a civil union then if they want a religious marriage then they should then go to their respective church or religious and do their religious duties as they see fit. A church should be able to unite any into their faiths marriages without the states intrusion at all.

Ok that makes sense and I agree. - Get rid of marriage licenses all together, give civil union contracts only, where all civil contracts are equal.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[luckytxn 2,265]

Ok that makes sense and I agree. - Get rid of marriage licenses all together, give civil union contracts only, where all civil contracts are equal.

Exactly. But to be fair they should state a minimum standards for civil contracts. Like between two humans and hopefully between non family members. Shame that laws have to be made not to marry your cat or dog or sheep or sister or brother or parents but the state should maybe not allow certain unions.

Edited August 29, 2011 by luckytxn

[Danno 1,228]

Greece from the Archaic through Hellenistic Period , Rome, Japan from the Kamakura period all the way through the end of the Tokugawa shogunate.

Most of the periods are at least 700 years long.

Thanks for your post on the subject.I began with Japanese marriage history and found nothing of multiple partners being the norm and it seems consent of the bride and groom was not of importance either which rules this example of "success" out as qualifying as "consenting adults".

I will try to read up on the other examples you listed to see if they were indeed society of multiple consenting partners.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Thanks for your post on the subject.I began with Japanese marriage history and found nothing of multiple partners being the norm and it seems consent of the bride and groom was not of importance either which rules this example of "success" out as qualifying as "consenting adults".

I will try to read up on the other examples you listed to see if they were indeed society of multiple consenting partners.

No in Japan polygamy was not the norm, though homosexual relations were. You should find polygamy in greek history however.

[Danno 1,228]

No in Japan polygamy was not the norm, though homosexual relations were. You should find polygamy in greek history however.

Seems a number of the countries you mentioned popped up in a simple Wilki search.

Let me know if this was the -Golden age of sex relations- or not because it seems as though societies that embrace Homosexuality soon permit other things as well.

Pederasty

Greeks

Main article: Pederasty in ancient Greece

Plato was an early critic of sexual intercourse in pederastic relationships, proposing that men's love of boys avoid all carnal expression and instead progress from admiration of the lover's specific virtues to love of virtue itself in abstract form. While copulation with boys was often criticized and seen as shameful and brutish,[34] other aspects of the relationship were considered beneficial, as indicated in proverbs such as A lover is the best friend a boy will ever have.[35]

Pederastic art shows seduction scenes as well as sexual relations. In the seduction scenes the man is standing, grasping the boy's chin with one hand and reaching to fondle his genitals with the other. In the sexual scenes, the partners stand embracing face to face, the older of the two engaged in intercrural sex with the younger, who (usually but not always) does not show arousal. ####### sex is almost never shown, and then only as something eliciting surprise in the observers. The practice was ostensibly disparaged, the Athenians often naming it jocularly after their Dorian neighbors ("cretanize," "laconize," "chalcidize"). While historians such as Dover and Halperin hold that only the man experienced pleasure, art and poetry indicate reciprocity of desire, and other historians assert that it is "a modern fairy tale that the younger eromenos was never aroused."[36]

Pederastic couples were said to be feared by tyrants, because the bond between the friends was stronger than that of obedience to a tyrannical ruler. Plutarch gives as examples the Athenians Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Others, such as Aristotle, claimed that the Cretan lawgivers encouraged pederasty as a means of population control, by directing love and sexual desire into relations with males.[37]

[edit]Romans

Homosexuality in ancient Rome

Jupiter abducting Ganymede; 1st c. CE Roman statue

From the early Republican times of Ancient Rome, it was perfectly normal for a man to desire and pursue boys.[38] However, penetration was illegal for free born youths; the only boys who were legally allowed to perform as a passive sexual partner were slaves or former slaves known as "freedmen", and then only with regard to their former masters. For slaves there was no protection under the law even against rape.[39]

The result was that in Roman times, pederasty largely lost its function as a ritual part of education and was instead seen as an activity primarily driven by one's sexual desires and competing with desire for women. The social acceptance of pederastic relations waxed and waned during the centuries. Conservative thinkers condemned it — along with other forms of indulgence. Tacitus attacks the Greek customs of "gymnasia et otia et turpes amores" (palaestrae, idleness, and shameful loves).[40]

Other writers spent no effort censuring pederasty per se, but praised or blamed its various aspects. Martial appears to have favored it, going as far as to essentialize not the sexual use of the catamite but his nature as a boy: upon being discovered by his wife "inside a boy" and offered the "same thing" by her, he retorts with a list of mythological personages who, despite being married, took young male lovers, and concludes by rejecting her offer since "a woman merely has two vaginas."[41]

[edit]Post-classical and modern forms

[edit]Middle East and Central Asia

In pre-modern Islam there was a "widespread conviction that beardless youths possessed a temptation to adult men as a whole, and not merely to a small minority of deviants."[42]

In central Asia the practice is reputed to have long been widespread, and remains a part of the culture, as exemplified by the proverb, Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight.[43] In the Ottoman Empire culture, young male dancers, usually cross-dressed in feminine attire were called Köçek.

In post-Islamic Persia, where, as Louis Crompton claims, "boy love flourished spectacularly", art and literature also made frequent use of the pederastic topos. These celebrate the love of the wine boy, as do the paintings and drawings of artists such as Reza Abbasi (1565 – 1635). Western travelers reported that at Abbas' court (some time between 1627 and 1629) they saw evidence of homoerotic practices. Male houses of prostitution amrad khaneh, "houses of the beardless", were legally recognized and paid taxes.[44]

Osman Agha of Temeşvar who fell captive to the Austrians in 1688 wrote in his memoirs that one night an Austrian boy approached him for sex, telling him "for I know all Turks are pederasts".[45]

In 1770s, Âşık Sadık the poet wrote, in an address to the Sultan: Lût kavmi döğüşür, put kavmi bozar. Askerin lûtîdir, bil Padişahım ("The people of Lot fight, the people of idolatry spoil. Know, my Sultan, that your soldiers are sodomites").[46]

In Afghanistan in 2009, the British Army commissioned a report into the sexuality of the local men after British soldiers reported the discomfort at witnessing adult males involved in sexual relations with boys. The report stated that though illegal, there was a tradition of such relationships in the country, known as "bache bazi" or boy play, and that it was especially strong around Kandahar.[47]

[edit]Japan

In Japan, the practice of shudō (衆道), "the Way of the Young", paralleled closely the course of European pederasty.[citation needed] It was prevalent in the religious community and samurai society from the mediaeval period on, and eventually grew to permeate all of society.[citation needed] It fell out of favor around the end of the 19th century, concurrent with the growing European influence.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Seems a number of the countries you mentioned popped up in a simple Wilki search.

Let me know if this was the -Golden age of sex relations- or not because it seems as though societies that embrace Homosexuality soon permit other things as well.

Pederasty

Greeks

Main article: Pederasty in ancient Greece

Plato was an early critic of sexual intercourse in pederastic relationships, proposing that men's love of boys avoid all carnal expression and instead progress from admiration of the lover's specific virtues to love of virtue itself in abstract form. While copulation with boys was often criticized and seen as shameful and brutish,[34] other aspects of the relationship were considered beneficial, as indicated in proverbs such as A lover is the best friend a boy will ever have.[35]

Pederastic art shows seduction scenes as well as sexual relations. In the seduction scenes the man is standing, grasping the boy's chin with one hand and reaching to fondle his genitals with the other. In the sexual scenes, the partners stand embracing face to face, the older of the two engaged in intercrural sex with the younger, who (usually but not always) does not show arousal. ####### sex is almost never shown, and then only as something eliciting surprise in the observers. The practice was ostensibly disparaged, the Athenians often naming it jocularly after their Dorian neighbors ("cretanize," "laconize," "chalcidize"). While historians such as Dover and Halperin hold that only the man experienced pleasure, art and poetry indicate reciprocity of desire, and other historians assert that it is "a modern fairy tale that the younger eromenos was never aroused."[36]

Pederastic couples were said to be feared by tyrants, because the bond between the friends was stronger than that of obedience to a tyrannical ruler. Plutarch gives as examples the Athenians Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Others, such as Aristotle, claimed that the Cretan lawgivers encouraged pederasty as a means of population control, by directing love and sexual desire into relations with males.[37]

[edit]Romans

Homosexuality in ancient Rome

Jupiter abducting Ganymede; 1st c. CE Roman statue

From the early Republican times of Ancient Rome, it was perfectly normal for a man to desire and pursue boys.[38] However, penetration was illegal for free born youths; the only boys who were legally allowed to perform as a passive sexual partner were slaves or former slaves known as "freedmen", and then only with regard to their former masters. For slaves there was no protection under the law even against rape.[39]

The result was that in Roman times, pederasty largely lost its function as a ritual part of education and was instead seen as an activity primarily driven by one's sexual desires and competing with desire for women. The social acceptance of pederastic relations waxed and waned during the centuries. Conservative thinkers condemned it — along with other forms of indulgence. Tacitus attacks the Greek customs of "gymnasia et otia et turpes amores" (palaestrae, idleness, and shameful loves).[40]

Other writers spent no effort censuring pederasty per se, but praised or blamed its various aspects. Martial appears to have favored it, going as far as to essentialize not the sexual use of the catamite but his nature as a boy: upon being discovered by his wife "inside a boy" and offered the "same thing" by her, he retorts with a list of mythological personages who, despite being married, took young male lovers, and concludes by rejecting her offer since "a woman merely has two vaginas."[41]

[edit]Post-classical and modern forms

[edit]Middle East and Central Asia

In pre-modern Islam there was a "widespread conviction that beardless youths possessed a temptation to adult men as a whole, and not merely to a small minority of deviants."[42]

In central Asia the practice is reputed to have long been widespread, and remains a part of the culture, as exemplified by the proverb, Women for breeding, boys for pleasure, but melons for sheer delight.[43] In the Ottoman Empire culture, young male dancers, usually cross-dressed in feminine attire were called Köçek.

In post-Islamic Persia, where, as Louis Crompton claims, "boy love flourished spectacularly", art and literature also made frequent use of the pederastic topos. These celebrate the love of the wine boy, as do the paintings and drawings of artists such as Reza Abbasi (1565 – 1635). Western travelers reported that at Abbas' court (some time between 1627 and 1629) they saw evidence of homoerotic practices. Male houses of prostitution amrad khaneh, "houses of the beardless", were legally recognized and paid taxes.[44]

Osman Agha of Temeşvar who fell captive to the Austrians in 1688 wrote in his memoirs that one night an Austrian boy approached him for sex, telling him "for I know all Turks are pederasts".[45]

In 1770s, Âşık Sadık the poet wrote, in an address to the Sultan: Lût kavmi döğüşür, put kavmi bozar. Askerin lûtîdir, bil Padişahım ("The people of Lot fight, the people of idolatry spoil. Know, my Sultan, that your soldiers are sodomites").[46]

In Afghanistan in 2009, the British Army commissioned a report into the sexuality of the local men after British soldiers reported the discomfort at witnessing adult males involved in sexual relations with boys. The report stated that though illegal, there was a tradition of such relationships in the country, known as "bache bazi" or boy play, and that it was especially strong around Kandahar.[47]

[edit]Japan

In Japan, the practice of shudō (衆道), "the Way of the Young", paralleled closely the course of European pederasty.[citation needed] It was prevalent in the religious community and samurai society from the mediaeval period on, and eventually grew to permeate all of society.[citation needed] It fell out of favor around the end of the 19th century, concurrent with the growing European influence.

Your point being that society can even support pedophelia without the walls of civilization collapsing around it? (That being the original context of your question to scandal) Anyway this is a different topic entirely as it has to do with consent. In our society its banned not for being immoral but because generally children are not seen as legally able to provide consent.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you know the number one freedom we have is to "have our voices heard".

Actually, the number one freedom we have is to not have our rights trampled on even if a majority feels that it would be a good idea to trample on them. Without that, no freedom you enjoy can ever be guaranteed. But you wouldn't know that.

[scandal 951]

If any state wants to allow marriage between same sex then let them but do not expect then that same couple then to move to another state and expect that union to be recognized if that state wishes to not recognize marriages between same sex. This should not even be an issue at all as marriage is essentially a religious component and should be recognized by the two independent people uniting in a holy matrimony. It is the states that are recognizing the religious component. Now the states can recognize a pact between any two people to unite in a civil way but not call it a marriage but to issue a marriage license means they are intruding into religious affairs.

Marriage need not have anything to do with religion whatsoever.

Plenty of people want to get married to affirm their commitment to each other, and that has nothing to do with religion.

The Supreme Court has upheld this as a fundamental right - e.g.ZABLOCKI V. REDHAIL (1978)

Besides, there are are practical reasons for marriage. Take a look at this website. Virtually everyone here is either in the process of a marriage based immigration proceeding or has completed one. Need I remind you that to bring your loved one to the USA you must marry him/her?

Go find some more socialist moron sheep to rail at. You've got as much insight there as on the subject of marriage, who is entitled to it, and why people get married.