Is Marriage Really Tradionally Based On Hetrosexuality?

[steampunk]

Is Marriage Really Tradionally Based On Hetrosexuality?

The Right Wing is arguing that Traditional Marriage is based on the fact that it is between a man and a woman.

I don't agree. Traditional marriage was only between a man and a woman more often than not because people are heterosexual by nature more often than not. The primary reason people got married was because they had higher than average compatible personal traits. If it were only what you had between your legs, marriage would have been much easier. But instead, it's always been a difficult choice, because of the majority of the reasons behind marriage: compatibility factors. Heterosexuality may have been a common reason due to nature, but it has never been in any practical way the primary aspect that defines a marriage.

The reason many gays didn't get married in the past is because it was tradition to discriminate against them, to hate them, to punish them, and to even murder them. This hatred, bigotry, and discrimination is what is being brought forward in passive aggressive, indirect way through this Right Wing Tradition argument.

Is marriage really in principle a heterosexual tradition? If so, where is the evidence that sexual orientation is predominately the definition of traditional marriage? You have to prove that people who have got married in the past were having heterosexual sex above all other things they do in marriage. If you can't do that, then it's not the principle factor that can be used to define it traditionally.

If we let the facts decide in history, the right wingers are wrong, because the evidence proves that marriage has little do with the sex of any kind. In order to make their point, they have to over-sexual the definition, cheapening the real and traditional meaning, as if it was only hedonistic in principle.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i think you are seriously stretching..

show me some historical facts that show that marriage is traditionally other than man and women..

i think your error is using the word 'traditionally'

as controversial as it is today, it was worse back through history..

 

[Neverfly]

Is Marriage Really Tradionally Based On Hetrosexuality?

The Right Wing is arguing that Traditional Marriage is based on the fact that it is between a man and a woman.

I don't agree. Traditional marriage was only between a man and a woman more often than not because people are heterosexual by nature more often than not. The primary reason people got married was because they had higher than average compatible personal traits. If it were only what you had between your legs, marriage would have been much easier. But instead, it's always been a difficult choice, because of the majority of the reasons behind marriage: compatibility factors. Heterosexuality may have been a common reason due to nature, but it has never been in any practical way the primary aspect that defines a marriage.

NMSquirrel was right. Many of your arguments here have nothing to do with tradition. In fact, it almost appears as if you're defining things in your argument on your own terms. Which is odd because you point out the 'tradition' in your next statement:

The reason many gays didn't get married in the past is because it was tradition to discriminate against them, to hate them, to punish them, and to even murder them. This hatred, bigotry, and discrimination is what is being brought forward in passive aggressive, indirect way through this Right Wing Tradition argument.

Passive Aggression is the new "in" isn't it?

Is marriage really in principle a heterosexual tradition?

Yes.
It always has been so far in almost every society. Even ancient Japanese and Roman societies which not only supported homosexuality; even encouraged it at times, did not allow same sex marital unions most of the time.
Modern marital concepts stem from "The Church" which is, by its nature, opposed to homosexuality and not too keen on letting homosexuals marry. THAT is the traditional aspect of it- The Church.

If so, where is the evidence that sexual orientation is predominately the definition of traditional marriage?

The evidence is in how history defines it. Society has decided such throughout the years. The evidence for it is very clear. However, I don't think that is what you intend to ask. I think you intend to ask; "SHOULD it be such?"

You have to prove that people who have got married in the past were having heterosexual sex above all other things they do in marriage.

Nonsense. No one needs to prove anything of the kind. One needs only demonstrate that the majority of society performed and agreed with heterosexual unions only. If there were closet cases in the crowd or homosexuals who agreed to heterosexual marriages for financial reasons or whatever else have you- it's irrelevant to the Majority of the society imposing its will on the rest.
The "tradition" still stems from argumentum ad antiquity and The Church.

If you can't do that, then it's not the principle factor that can be used to define it traditionally.

This claim is rendered moot by the above considerations...

If we let the facts decide in history,

The point is not to "let the facts" decide history; but rather, to Make History.

the right wingers are wrong,

Well, that's nothing new...

because the evidence proves that marriage has little do with the sex of any kind.

I agree with the statement in some regards, but you provided no 'evidence' that supports the statement. "Traditionally," marriage HAS always been an opposite sex union. But just because something has always been such, doesn't mean that it should always be such. In tradition, marriage has also been a great way to marry off a queer prince and get a peace treaty between nations. Marriage itself has many of its traditional roots in finances, politics and religious preferences. Much of the time, a few years after the ceremonies, most folks went on about their own designs, despite the "sacred union" ideals touted by the church. Which, on a side note; traditionally opposed Divorce- leading to beaten wives, abused husbands and miserable children all having to stick it out together. Not always, mind you. And while some small percentage became better people for it, many did not. Seems better to me to allow people to choose for themselves... In modern history, we finally broke with tradition and stopped disallowing divorce in the United States. Other countries still disallow divorce. And in some middle Eastern nations- divorce is a whim for the man and a nightmarish battle for the woman. Nice and traditional.

In order to make their point, they have to over-sexual the definition, cheapening the real and traditional meaning, as if it was only hedonistic in principle.

Personally, I do not think it has anything to do with the act of sex, but the preference of sex and how others like to impose their Will on anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Opposition to homosexuality is a Christian Tradition. Another Christian tradition is telling other people how to live, telling other people that they are wrong for not believing what Christians believe (but don't follow through with their behavior) and lastly, imposing a rather strict and absurd belief that anyone who doesn't agree with them gets damned to an eternity of suffering, no matter how well they lived their lives.

YES, traditional marriage is between a man and a woman. At one time, slavery was tradition. Santa remains a tradition and look at how absurd that tall tale is...(Yes, let's get traditional and Lie to our children. Tooth fairies and Easter Bunnies... A fat jolly elf rounding the planet with an open sleigh and reindeer in one night, followed by a tailing sleigh with three smaller elves armed with pooper scoopers to erase any evidence of their passing in a cosmic conspiracy. Great way to earn their traditional little trust!)
"Tradition," as a label, does not offer any validity whatsoever to the continued behavior of a group. It doesn't mean squat.

Now that we've established that- let's break with tradition and stop meddling in other peoples lives. Stop making people suffer for not fitting into the sexual stereotypes. Stop tormenting same sex couples when one is in the hospital and the other is denied the right to see their loved one because of stupid archaic and "traditional" laws.

Which really is in the Christians favor when you think about it. If they despise homosexuality so much; why not allow gays to enter into the unions that have been making us straights miserable for years?

 

[Cavalier]

There is some history of homosexual marriage in ancient Rome that I am aware of, but the overwhelming tradition we live with is more Christian than Roman in that regard (despite Rome's influence on western law and philosophy).

That said, the biblical tradition on which our own culture is based clearly allows for polygyny. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (so the tradition goes).

It's also true that just a few centuries ago, marriage for "love" was non-traditional, as marriages were arranged largely based around matters of property exchange and upward mobility. Seneca famously wrote, "Nothing is more impure than to love one's wife as if she were a mistress" and the attitude that marriage was no place for true love persisted in the west to varying degrees at least until the 19th century. Marriage for love was considered itself a danger to the social order in some places (because, for example, it caused fights when two lovesick people resisted marrying other people selected by their parents), and so frowned upon.

Divorce was also highly "non-traditional" in the Christian west until a couple of centuries ago. In the 18th and 19th centuries, under the doctrine of coverture, it was clear that a wife was largely the ward of her husband, and all her legal rights belonged to him. So a wife could not enter contracts without his consent, own any property (or at least anything she owned became his to do with as he pleased), etc.

The ban on same-sex marriage is certainly a "tradition," but we have jettisoned quite a number of truly horrible traditions in the past few centuries. That something is traditional doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Asguard]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

Ok that one is amusing but this one is interesting and contradicts the "traditional" view that homsexuality is a sin and that the church was against same sex marriage

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Original Article or

A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay "wedding" is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (AD 512 - 518) explained that, "we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life". This is not a case of simple "adelphopoiia." In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus's close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as "erastai,” or "lovers". In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together" according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell's academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given love and committment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

 

[steampunk]

i think you are seriously stretching..

show me some historical facts that show that marriage is traditionally other than man and women..

i think your error is using the word 'traditionally'

as controversial as it is today, it was worse back through history..

What I'm trying to point out is what the marriage is primarily. Count the seconds of what people do when they are married. Qualify each second of time with a behaviour. Add everything up and you will see, sexual orientation has very little to do with what people are doing in a marriage, since the majority of behaviour far outweighs the sexual behaviour. It has been this way throughout human history.

If we call things what they are, you have to take the entire context of the thing into consideration. You don't get to just choose one aspect and extrapolate it upon the entire situation and call it that. That is much like using a person's skin color to discriminate against a person, whereas if you took the person as a whole there is much more to take into consideration.

We are arguing the true definition of what constitutes traditional marriage. I'm considering the entire context and behaviour qualitatively and quantitatively to come to a true definition. Instead, they remove the context of all behaviour and focus solely upon a concept of sexual orientation. Mine is empirical, theirs theoretical and revisionist.

And Neverfly,

You are wordy aren't you. I thought I was. Anyway, I'm just trying to point out this one thing above. Do you really think my way of forming the definition should just exclude everything except sexual orientation? Is that what you are asking? Why shouldn't I take the whole situation into account? The entire marriage and every waking moment to define it?

I feel like this sort of minority cherry picked aspect extrapolation over the entire tradition is just Historical Revisionism.

 

[Neverfly]

And Neverfly,

You are wordy aren't you. I thought I was.

I'm not wordy except for when required by certain events that suggest that words would be the most effective method of communication as opposed to wordless communication which is best left to certain situations in which words are unnecessary or counter-contradictory/counter-productive to the establishment of effective communication to convey meanings that otherwise may require vocalized communication.
To be brief.

We are arguing the true definition of what constitutes traditional marriage.

Is there a true one? Language tends to be a bit fluid and definitions evolve over time.

I'm considering the entire context and behaviour qualitatively and quantitatively to come to a true definition.

Perhaps you are trying to come to a true definition of Marriage.

Instead, they remove the context of all behaviour and focus solely upon a concept of sexual orientation. Mine is empirical, theirs theoretical and revisionist.

This is because of their bias and personal desire to impose their beliefs on others.

Anyway, I'm just trying to point out this one thing above. Do you really think my way of forming the definition should just exclude everything except sexual orientation? Is that what you are asking?

Ummm... no... I have no idea how I may have given you that message...

Why shouldn't I take the whole situation into account? The entire marriage and every waking moment to define it?

I see no problem with doing this if you are trying to define a Modern Marriage. Or, to improve a definition.
But a traditional marriage definition is already set. It is established in history and this: Traditional.
Now, your definition of marriage can be accepted as a Modern View and let's say it's accepted and defines how marriages are described for a long time to come: IT will then be "Traditional." Once it's established as tradition.

 

[steampunk]

I see no problem with doing this if you are trying to define a Modern Marriage. Or, to improve a definition.
But a traditional marriage definition is already set. It is established in history and this: Traditional.
Now, your definition of marriage can be accepted as a Modern View and let's say it's accepted and defines how marriages are described for a long time to come: IT will then be "Traditional." Once it's established as tradition.

Consider that we have an established definition of traditional marriage we could draw upon through some form of written documentation in the past. Let us say the documentation, points out that marriage is between a man and a woman or implies it.

I claim, this is not enough. Why? Have you considered they are not representing things accurately in their own time? That they have written things up in a way that contradicts the reality they lived? I'm willing to test this.

I'm not into abject misrepresentations. I want to considered all things the marriage consisted as a whole back to days they call traditional.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but are you asking me to drop all their behaviour in a marriage we could qualify and quantify to challenge even their own view of what they stated as traditional?

 

[spidergoat]

Traditional marriage didn't have anything to do with sex, it was about property. Women were property and you needed a contract in case they ran off. Traditionally, marriage was between one man and one or more women.

 

[steampunk]

Traditionally, marriage was between one man and one or more women.

This kind of statement is being taken in a way that implies it only meant that Traditional Marriage only means it's between a man and woman.

We could say much about Traditional Marriage that has nothing to do with them being a man or woman.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who ate together.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who shit and pissed near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who worked near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who slept near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who cleaned house together.

On and on through all the behaviour people do under marriage. It's all traditional and most of it has nothing to do with the fact they were a man or woman.

 

[Neverfly]

Steampunk... if you want to define "Marriage" -fine.

Stop using the word, "traditional" if that is not the word you mean.

 

[spidergoat]

This kind of statement is being taken in a way that implies it only meant that Traditional Marriage only means it's between a man and woman.

We could say much about Traditional Marriage that has nothing to do with them being a man or woman.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who ate together.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who shit and pissed near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who worked near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who slept near each other.

Traditionally Marriage was between people who cleaned house together.

On and on through all the behaviour people do under marriage. It's all traditional and most of it has nothing to do with the fact they were a man or woman.

Culturally yes, that's what it meant, a man and one or more women. But that's also irrelevant, since as a contract, it's not necessarily religious in nature, it's secular. So why not make a contract that satisfies modern trends? No real reason at all.

 

[AlexG]

Since Traditional Marriage is based upon 'Till Death Do Us Part', I'd like to know what Rush Limgaugh's first, second, third and fourth wives think of this issue.

 

[steampunk]

Steampunk... if you want to define "Marriage" -fine.

Stop using the word, "traditional" if that is not the word you mean.

That's the word I mean and I'm trying to get the the definition of traditional marriage. You have overlooked my question:

Are you asking me to drop all their behaviour in a marriage we could qualify and quantify to challenge even their own view of what they stated as traditional?

 

[Neverfly]

That's the word I mean and I'm trying to get the the definition of traditional marriage. You have overlooked my question:

Maybe my brain is fried right now. I tried reading that and didn't understand what you are asking.

A traditional marriage has already been defined. You cannot change it. It's based on 'tradition.'

A simple point is that those traditions are changing. We are in a time of change. On this subject-

Simply put, the current definition of a traditional marriage may hopefully, not hold in the future. Anymore than the tradition of marriage from 300 years ago does not hold today.

The only thing you can do is define a Modern Marriage.

 

[steampunk]

Culturally yes, that's what it meant, a man and one or more women. But that's also irrelevant, since as a contract, it's not necessarily religious in nature, it's secular. So why not make a contract that satisfies modern trends? No real reason at all.

You are committing the same mistake by focusing merely on the paperwork. Marriage is more than a piece of paperwork. It's a living breathing relationship. A licence or a ring can symbolise the union. A child can even symbolise the union in a genetic way. But they are only symbols. They are not the actual marriage as a whole. To properly symbolise that you have take more than sexual orientation, number of partners, ownership of human, etc in to consideration.

What you guys are doing is cherry picking one attribute and extrapolating that attribute over the entire defintion of traditional marriage. That is a misrepresentation of the real thing that is marriage. It is not a licence, not a ring or a sexual orientation principle. It's a living breathing relationship and everything that makes that up. Traditionally, that is the evidence we have. That has not changed up to this day. No matter what a licence says or a law says. Certificates and laws do not always accurately represent things of fact.

 

[Neverfly]

Steampunk, my wife may have just explained what you're trying to convey to me.
Let me see if the understanding is accurate.

You are saying that the basic functions that classify as being traditional marriage- can apply to soldiers in the field (Eating together, sleeping 'together,' living together, doing everything together) The activities of the marriage. Except for sex.

Like a cake, if you take all of the ingredients - none of them are "Cake" until you put them all together and bake it?
Is that correct?

 

[steampunk]

Maybe my brain is fried right now. I tried reading that and didn't understand what you are asking.

A traditional marriage has already been defined. You cannot change it. It's based on 'tradition.'

A simple point is that those traditions are changing. We are in a time of change. On this subject-

Simply put, the current definition of a traditional marriage may hopefully, not hold in the future. Anymore than the tradition of marriage from 300 years ago does not hold today.

The only thing you can do is define a Modern Marriage.

I know you say your brain is fried, but still you didn't answer my question. Traditional Marriage may have been defined in your mind, but I'm not asking that. I'm asking this:

I'll try to rephrase what I was asking. Maybe that will help.

Are you asking me to drop peoples behaviour in the past while they were married, where this behaviour could be used to qualify and quantify what they were calling traditional marriage?

And, should I exclude this behaviour just because we may have some written evidence of theirs that may directly or indirectly state that traditionally marriage only meant to be between a man and woman?

If you just keep repeating "Traditional Marriage was between a man and a woman.", I could repeat with the same insignificance that "Traditional Marriage was between people who pissed and shit near each other." Married people do piss and shit near each other, that has been the tradition right?.

I'm trying to point out, it doesn't matter what you think or what they thought Tradition is, let science determine that through evidence of the entire relationship what was marriage back then. We can then call it what it is. It's not a heterosexual principle, a ring, a ceremony or contract. These are small things of significance in a traditional marriage. I am asking why you think we must marginalise one detail to determine what Traditional Marriage is.

The history books may say the two towers were hit by two passenger airliners on 911, that may be traditionally represent what happened, but not according to the latest engineers who have proven no passenger airliners hit the towers. The videos where photoshoped and sent to CNN because other live videos show something other than passenger airlines hitting the towers.

 

[steampunk]

Steampunk, my wife may have just explained what you're trying to convey to me.
Let me see if the understanding is accurate.

You are saying that the basic functions that classify as being traditional marriage- can apply to soldiers in the field (Eating together, sleeping 'together,' living together, doing everything together) The activities of the marriage. Except for sex.

Like a cake, if you take all of the ingredients - none of them are "Cake" until you put them all together and bake it?
Is that correct?

Yes. We are for the most part on the same page on that that point. That we consider all the ingredients. Not just a principle or attitude or orientation, etc. Keep in mind, some marriages do not include sex. They exist.

 

[Neverfly]

Ok I think you just answered the post where I just asked.
You are saying that the qualifiers that make a traditional marriage can apply to a same sex couple?

Edit to add: You sneaky dog! I like it!

One point of contention: Child producing- purpose is to multiply, produce offspring that can work the fields and heft stones at the harlot in the market place...