Übergeek 바둑이: I think the argfument isnt so much against them having similar rights, IE to pass property and hospital rights etc., its just when you call it "marriage" where the issues arise?

But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Czuch: No. That's rubbish. The only possible one of those you mention is polygamy.. which is not a worldwide crime, some places it is traditional and allowed, some it is not.

Brother/sister, etc is due to science of reproduction and the danger of high mutation or the reinforcement of bad genes.

(V):  Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you.

Czuch:

>  But then you also ,again, have to contend with other family forms as well, IE polygamy, brother sister, father son, right?

Two other western taboos are polygamy and incest.

Incest was acceptable in ancient Egypt and the pharaohs were often married to their brothers/sisters in order to preserve the purity of their divine blood.  It led to serious genetic defects being passed on to their children.  For example, Tuttankhammon suffered from spina bifida.  The Bible rejects incest very early on.  After escaping from Soddom and Gomorrah, Lot and his daughters were cursed because they had an incestuous relationship.  Our modern objection to incest comes from the possibility of passing genetic mutations or diseases to children.  As such incest remains undesirable and to me it is unacceptable in any form.

Poligamy is different because it is a form of marriage that survives into our modern era both in western culture and outside of western culture.  I know of two cases in southeast Asia.  I know of a "monk" in Singapore who had two wives.  I met one of his daughters who kept referring to her "auntie" and how cute her little brother was when he was playing with his mom who was also her "auntie".  Obviously that "autie" was her father's second wife.  I know of another case in Laos.  This wealthy man had 13 children with 3 women.  The common denominator here was wealth.  Polygamy is a priviledge of the wealthy.

Among Tibetans it was not uncommon for a woman to have several husbands.  Marriages involved the transfer of property among families and for many families it was economically unfeasible to "purchase" a wife for every male in the family.  For this reason several brothers would often marry the same woman.  It was acceptable socially because Tibetans believe that a man inherits his father's bones, therefore all brothers had the same bones from their father and if any of them had children with the woman, the children inherited the same bones.  Polyandry still survives in some places in Tibet and Nepal.  Poligyny (having several wives) was also common in Tibet where wealthy men could acquire several wives.

In India the Mahabharata describes a case one one woman marrying five brothers, so both polygyny and polyandry were acceptable.  Of course, the ancient Israelites had polygamy as attested in the stories of Abraham, Solomon, David, etc.  Judaism abandoned polygamy in the 11th century and today polygamy is illegal in Israel.

Polygamy became unacceptable during Roman times.  The Greeks had monogamous relationships, and the Roman's inherited monogamy from the Greeks.  In the 4th century St. Augustine formally accepted monogamy as the acceptable form of marriage among Christians.  Ever since western culture became monogamous.  Those values have gone around the world and many countries today have monogamous laws.

The question is: Is polygamy acceptable?  Here in Canada the government has had a lot of problems with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  Some of its sects engage in polygamy.  It has become a serious issue because in some cases girls as young as 13 have been married, with and without their consent.  On the one hand there are issues of the rights of women and young girls, on the other there are issues of religious freedom.  Polygamy remains illegal here and it will remain so in spite of the constitution guaranteeing religious freedom.  The government does not want to open that can of worms.

The Mormon church in Utah officially excommunicated those who practice polygamy, so the practice remains only among a few sects.  I would believe that the Mormon sects following polygamy had a legal case on constitutional grounds, but many marriages are with women under the legal age for marriage, and that women are denied full rights to education.

I don't know if polygamy is acceptable.  In a case where the people involved are of legal marriage age, fully aware of their actions, without coercion or subterfuge, and in full view of society and the law, would it be acceptable?  In some countires it is, in other it isn't.  It might sound desirable to some men, but isn't having one wife trouble enough?  What about division of property and divorce?  Cultures where polygyny is acceptable often have vague laws or laws that disfavour women.  It is one of reasons why polygamy remains unacceptable in most places.

Übergeek 바둑이: Getting to your next post.... I never said anything about incest, just a brother and sister living together and wanting certain rights and responsibilities.....

again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment, and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...

But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does with having the right to pass property etc

Czuch:

>  again, to me this should be about people living together and making a commitment,
>  and to be given certain rights because of this relationship...
>  But to me it is obvious that it is far more about being accepted as normal than it does
>  with having the right to pass property etc

I think there is a danger of falling prey to semantics.  Is a "civil union" that different from a "marriage"?  Those who want "marriage" strictly will tell you that calling it a "civil union" is discriminatory.  I think the issue would be resolved if all those 1138 statutes related to "marriage" were ammended to "marriage, civil union or whatever you want to call it".  Then regarless of what terminology we use, homosexual couples would have the same rights.  Asking to ammend 1138 statutes is a stretch when lawmakers can't even bring theselves to ammend 1 without being at each other's throats.

At some point we have to balance everyone's needs.  I think it is impossible to make everyone happy on the issue.  There will be people who vehemently oppose "homosexual marriage" and there are those who will never accept anything short of fully equal rights and semantics for homosexuals.  The government could completely remove itself from the issue.  Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so.  That would make  lot of people unhappy too.  I think it is one of those issues we might never be able to resolve.

Übergeek 바둑이: The government could completely remove itself from the issue. Call everything a "civil union" for legal terms, and have people call it a marriage in their private lives if they chose to do so. That would make lot of people unhappy too.



Why would that make anyone unhappy?

Übergeek 바둑이: Also, what AD said, that it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument... its simply not natural for a guy to put his penis in another guys anus, the same way it is for him to put it into a female vagina! There is something unnatural about it, and most people do not want to "legitimize" something that is so unnatural!

I think it would make a better tact, instead of calling it "gay marriage", that something like the "civil union" be adopted.... then you are not putting the emphasis on "homosexuals", you are putting the emphasis on couples, or familys in general, and their rights under the laws. "Family" is a lot easier definition to legally mess around with than "marriage"..... If all they really want is to have the same property and visitation etc rights, then why push so hard for it to be called a marriage anyways? I believe there has to be more to the agenda than meets the eye!

Czuch:

>  it is a "nature" argument, and not really a "religion" argument

What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say.  We are very different from other living organisms in this planet.  Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.  For example, it is not natural for a person to sit in front of a television for a few hours.  It is not natural for people to build skyscrapers, or rockets that go to the moon.  Human sexual behaviour is very different to that of other animals.  We are the only species that mates face to face.  I think that mating face to face has sometimes been observed among bonobos (a species of chimpazee).  The old trusty Missionary, the most common sexual position among humans, is uniquely human.

Is homosexuality unnatural? People would be surtprised to know how common homosexual behavious is in nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior

Bonobos (our closest genetic relative) exhibit homosexuality in several forms, although homosexuslaity among females is more common.

To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.  Western culture has been strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian values.  Homosexuality was taboo among the ancient Israelites as exemplified by some of the laws in the Torah.  That same taboo was passed on into the New Testament.

Other cultures outside the Judeo-Christian cultures had different views of homosexuality.  The ancient Greeks engaged in open homosexuality and among Greek aristocrats pederasty was the desirable form of education for young Greeks destined for political and economic power.  Homosexuality was common among the ancient Chinese up to the late Qin dinasty (end of the 19th century).  It was not uncoomon for male concubines to form part of the Chinese emperor's harem.  Homosexuality was acceptable among Sufi moslems in the 18th century, as attested in the poetry of the Persian Sufi poets.

Clearly our western dislike for homosexuality is culturally driven, and western culture is Judeo-Cristian in its origin.  The current definition of marriage is the Biblical definition of marriage, and that definition holds homosexuality as taboo.  If homosexual marriage becomes acceptable, then a lot of people fear that it would diminish the meaning of marriage, and therefore the values expounded by Judeo-Christian culture.

Übergeek 바둑이: What is "natural" in human beings is difficult to say. We are very different from other living organisms in this planet. Most of what we do is not natural in the sense that it is not observable in nature.

So at least you agree that a man on man sex is not natural....


To say that prejudice against homosexuality has no relationship to religion is erroneous.

I never said it had no relationship to religion.... just that it is more an issue that it is abnormal. I am not religious, but it is obvious to me that it is natural for a man and woman to have sex, and it is not natural for a man and a man to have sex.

Thats why I believe this argument should be about two people being together and their rights, no matter who they are, and not about sexual anything!