Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 29 Apr '15 11:38
    http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/

    Justice Scalia points to ancient Greece and Sparta and asks the question as to why ancient cultures which embraced homosexual behavior in mass did not embrace gay marriage.

    Speculations?
  2. 29 Apr '15 12:27
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/

    Justice Scalia points to ancient Greece and Sparta and asks the question as to why ancient cultures which embraced homosexual behavior in mass did not embrace gay marriage.

    Speculations?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_wedding_customs
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
    I am pretty sure Justice Scalia would not support what actually did go on in Greece.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    29 Apr '15 12:53 / 2 edits
    Because marriage is typically thought of as something that will lead to a family, and was useful in that regard. Gay marriage was useless back in ancient times.

    Now, however, marriage brings certain legal privileges such as tax breaks. Gay couples also adopt or have children through surrogates. Thus, gay marriage has a practical purpose, in addition to being symbolic of the couple's union.
  4. 29 Apr '15 12:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://mobile.wnd.com/2015/04/scalia-why-no-ancient-greek-gay-marriages/

    Justice Scalia points to ancient Greece and Sparta and asks the question as to why ancient cultures which embraced homosexual behavior in mass did not embrace gay marriage.

    Speculations?
    here is a speculation: justice scalia is a joke
  5. 29 Apr '15 12:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by vivify
    Because marriage is typically thought of as something that will lead to a family, and was useful in that regard. Gay marriage was useless back in ancient times.

    Now, however, marriage brings certain legal privileges such as tax breaks. Gay couples also adopt or have children through surrogates. Thus, gay marriage has a practical purpose, in addition of being symbolic of the couple's union.
    Why limit this to just monogamous relationships then?

    Wasn't it Hillary who said it took a village to raise a child?
  6. 29 Apr '15 12:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why limit this to just monogamous relationships then?

    Wasn't it Hillary who said it took a village to raise a child?
    great question.

    it should however be a separate thread. since it is a separate issue.
  7. Standard member vivify
    rain
    29 Apr '15 12:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why limit this to just monogamous relationships then?
    That's a completely different issue. Those who compare gay marriage to polygamy are using a false dichotomy.
  8. Standard member vivify
    rain
    29 Apr '15 12:58
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    great question.

    it should however be a separate thread. since it is a separate issue.
    Beat me to it.
  9. 29 Apr '15 13:07
    Just a few posts now until whodey will start his inane ramblings about how the government should "get out of the business" of marriage.
  10. 29 Apr '15 13:25
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Just a few posts now until whodey will start his inane ramblings about how the government should "get out of the business" of marriage.
    he is tip toeing right now, careful not to scare people away
    he is reasonable, asks polite questions, and when you let your guard down, BAM! OBAMA IS TO BLAME
  11. 29 Apr '15 13:35
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Just a few posts now until whodey will start his inane ramblings about how the government should "get out of the business" of marriage.
    Inane?

    What is more inane, giving people perks because of their sexual practice or treating everyone the same?
  12. 29 Apr '15 13:37
    Originally posted by Zahlanzi
    great question.

    it should however be a separate thread. since it is a separate issue.
    This is my thread and I can discuss it if I like.

    Why does every thought have to have its own special thread, especially when it pertains to the subject matter?
  13. 29 Apr '15 13:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    Why limit this to just monogamous relationships then?
    The Greeks didn't. That is probably why they didn't bother with gay marriage. They could get married to a woman, get all the benefits that went with that such as children to inherit the family name, and still have gay relationships - which were also recognised by the society.
  14. 29 Apr '15 13:46
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is more inane, giving people perks because of their sexual practice or treating everyone the same?
    The perks are actually not because of their sexual practice. You can get married and get tax breaks without having sex at all. I am not sure why tax breaks are given to married couples. There are probably a number of different reasons and I don't know if I agree with them. I think that as a single parent I deserve an even bigger tax break
  15. 29 Apr '15 13:48
    Originally posted by whodey
    Inane?

    What is more inane, giving people perks because of their sexual practice or treating everyone the same?
    Currently none of the US states, including the 36 that allow same-sex marriage, prescribe any "sexual practice" as a requirement for marriage.

    What legal recognition of marriage does is provide citizens with a convenient "default" way to arrange things like inheritance, custody and adoption. Getting government out of this "business" will force people to arrange their own marriage contracts. This is a lawyer's wet dream but would be costly, inconvenient and hugely unpopular.