LA judge upholds state SSM ban

[bedstuy]

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

[SteveRogers]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I wouldn't say that everyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot. Many people may be old and set in their ways, they may be working off of a bad set of information about the nature of sexual orientation, and they may have never met a gay person in their life. Their opinion may be reflexive and the result of lifelong conditioning.

I don't think you mean "never have met a gay person in your life". It's as if I told you that you had never met a woman in your life.

Of course, I meant to say they may have never met an openly gay person or someone who they knew to be gay.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPseOlTl7Dk

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

Okay, you've amply demonstrated that you consider any worldview you aren't interested in taking the effort to understand to be stupid. You don't need to resort to profanity.

[bedstuy]

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

That's a monumentally stupid argument.  If you're actually going to maintain that we need not use reason or principle or law or ethics to guide our behavior, what's the point of discussing anything?  If you think that, "well, I don't believe in reasoning" is a good argument, that's sort of the end of the line.  I disagree with you.  What are we supposed to do now?  Throw down in a cage match or something? 

Honestly, that sort of thinking is as bad as bigotry, it's basically nihilism with a twist of conservatism.  But, it's funny that you accept that type of nonsense when it hurts gay people, but what about other issues?  Someone could use your identical logic, "well, maybe logic is BS and maybe tradition something something" to justify Jim Crow or the Taliban's Islamic law or any of the worst barbarism.  That's what your argument is, barbarism.  Give me a break.  If that's the best you conservatives can do, in the immortal words of Big Daddy Kane, "put a quarter in your ass cause you played yourself."

Okay, you've amply demonstrated that you consider any worldview you aren't interested in taking the effort to understand to be stupid. You don't need to resort to profanity.

Apparently, your worldview that tradition is (might be) (maybe) automatically superior to all logic, reason, data, law and consideration by human beings in 2014 (or just on the issues that you choose)? Yes, that's a dumb idea and don't act like I'm the close-minded one here.  That's bonkers.

[SteveRogers]

I didn't say anything about the effect of these views on their legal bearing. The only thing I have been trying to say is that it is possible to not support same-sex marriage without being a bigot. Perhaps you equate opposition to same-sex marriage with bigotry; but you seemed to readily make all sorts of assumptions about my character earlier that were not true. Surely you can acknowledge there mere possibility that there are some people who do not support same-sex marriage without being homophobes, bigots, fundamentalists, and so forth?

Yes, they could be ignorant or stupid, however so often that's coterminous with fundamentalism or homophobia.

Honestly, I have never heard a single coherent argument that addresses the point I made earlier, why distinguish a man-woman relationship from a man-man woman-woman relationship? (except arguments that relied on fundamentalism or homophobia, which are coherent, but wrong-headed and horrible)  I'm open to hearing a coherent argument that meets my criteria.  But, I don't think it exists.  This has been argued by people smarter than you and I in the Federal Courts.  The anti-SSM marriage side has failed to find one rational basis reason for banning SSM.  Maybe you can help them and think of one, but I seriously doubt it.

It might be considered that opposition to gay marriage comes out of a somewhat different intellectual tradition than which modern "rational basis" legal arguments rest upon, and that diverse intellectual traditions can hold coherence or at least not be "stupid."

Your criteria is seems to be that any concept of marriage related to gender qua gender is bigoted by definition, is that right?

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean.  If the argument is that marriage means one man and one woman, because that's what it means, that's circular and therefore fundamentally flawed.  To say, gay people can't get married because marriage is between one man and one woman, that's no type of argument.  The premise for the conclusion can't just be the restatement of the conclusion in different words.

And, my point isn't even really about what is and is not bigoted.  It would help if we allowed ourselves to be fairly politically incorrect and frank about our opinions.  But, my point is that there is a lack of an actual honest to goodness, principled argument on the anti-SSM side.  An argument that lays out a coherent principle that differentiates between homosexual and heterosexual couples AND ALSO explains why that distinction matters in a relevant way.  So, just saying gay people like showtunes too much or gay people are gay, that's not going to cut it. 

The assumption you are making, as I understand it, is that all social institutions must be organized according to principles of deductive reasoning in order to be valid, and that tradition is no guide to how things should be. That simply isn't something that a conservative is going to agree with. Deductive reasoning only takes you so far.  Consider the fact that we are debating whether something is Constitutional, which itself is a tradition.  There is no analytic proof that says we should follow the Constitution, is there?  We attempt to adhere to it because of what the tradition has brought us. Marriage is like that, except it is a much more ancient and universal tradition, with its origins in the most remote past of human history, and with a much more unfathomable history and depth of social ramifications. As we look across cultures, marriage has a gender specific aspect to it, and I don't find it absurd to consider that gender may be significant to marriage not in a single absolute way, but in a panoply of ways which together might be significant. There is the issue of the relation of marriage to procreation, there is the idea of male and female complementarity as basic social and cosmological concepts in the human cultural experience. I support legal recognition of gay unions, and I even support calling them marriages, but to say that a union between two people of the same gender and those of different genders are fundamentally the same in all important respects is not something I feel can be claimed with any confidence.  This is an issue of Chesterton's fence.  The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

Dude, when your view involves denying equal rights to a whole group of people, then the burden should absolutely be on you to state a coherent reason as to why that's the preferable policy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

In cases like Bush v. Gore . . . the five conservative justices have proven that they will pay the Constitution no more mind than toilet paper when it conflicts with their personal political agendas.

Now that's just ridiculous.  Bush v. Gore has been a talking point of liberals to bash conservatives on the Court for years, but most people who bash the conservatives couldn't even say why Bush v. Gore was decided wrongly.  So let's hear it... what about Bush v. Gore do you disagree with the conservatives on, and what would you have held?

[Slander and/or Libel]

The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

Here's the thing: if you think there is some fundamental wisdom in the state of affairs we inherited, you should be able to actually articulate that wisdom, right? But you haven't. Not only haven't you articulated it, you haven't even come close! Even if it's complicated, or non-intuitive, it would be instructive to hear your interpretation of the "wisdom in what we have inherited". But you've refused to give it, which makes it seem as though you're really trying to muddy the waters more than anything.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The fundamental question here is - might there wisdom in what we have inherited that may be obscured in the myopia of the ideology and politics of the present moment?  The fact that the reasons for something may not be obvious or can be reduced to a simple legal formula does not mean it arises from ignorance or animous.   I see no reason to assume guilt of bigotry until proven innocence when it comes to those who have created and attempted to preserve an valuable institution, even if we come to the conclusion that a transformation of it may be necessary.

Here's the thing: if you think there is some fundamental wisdom in the state of affairs we inherited, you should be able to actually articulate that wisdom, right? But you haven't. Not only haven't you articulated it, you haven't even come close! Even if it's complicated, or non-intuitive, it would be instructive to hear your interpretation of the "wisdom in what we have inherited". But you've refused to give it, which makes it seem as though you're really trying to muddy the waters more than anything.

There truthfully isn't any reason why I would necessarily be clever enough to articulate it in any simplistic and comprehensive way, as much wisdom and experience is inarticulated. In the words of Michael Polyani, "we know more than we can tell," and  the knowledge that is transmitted from one generation to the next relies fundamentally on that which is unspoken.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

link

The fact that something is not fully articulated does not mean it cannot be explored. The wisdom that is embedded in the history and structure of marriage as an institution related to sexual difference contains an indefinite number of aspects, but two stand out for me at the moment:

(1) Marriage has existed for the protection and provision of women and children. We might like to think this sort of thing is no longer necessary, but the number of unmarried mothers and children in poverty, among other things, suggests otherwise. This is something that should not be neglected. I do believe, contra many traditionalists, this function is ultimately compatible with extending marriage to same-sex couples (even if it is incompatible with the logic of many arguments presented in favor of same-sex marriage).
(2) Marriage may recognize and value a sexual complementarity present in human nature.
This obviously is an idea many people find offensive at the present time, but it's one that is unavoidable when looking at the human cultural experience. This claim might be called religious - though not in any narrow sense of the term - and in a pluralistic, open society it makes sense that the enactment of it would not fall to the civil authority. Obviously someone who believes government should play a stronger role in upholding social bonds might take a different view.

Given this, I see good reasons why marriage has been an opposite-gender institutions. At the same time I don't conclude from this that it must be such, at least in the civil sphere, and extending the institution to gay couples may even have strengthening effects on those couples as well as the institution and society in general.  On the other hand, I can appreciate the concern of what might be a fundamental change within an ancient and critical institution because I understand that we can't be fully aware of the implications of what we are leaving behind.  Proceeding as though we know it all, and that all those who went before and did things differently were simply so much more mean and foolish than we are, is responsible neither to the past nor to the future.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I mean, I suppose that's the beginning of a stab at an explanation, though there's an awful lot of hand-waving preceding it.

So what are some of the potential implications of SSM that we should be afraid of? I know part of your answer will be that we don't know what they are and we should thus be wary about meddling, but humor me.

[bedstuy]

You're just imputing this wisdom and consideration to the past for no particular reason.

In a sense, I agree with your basic point.  People thought marriage was a good institution, because it's healthy for society in many ways.  It is good for children and creating stable social bonds.  But, that's intrinsic to families, couples and people who love each other and share their lives together.  That's not intrinsic to a straight couple in a way those social goods are not intrinsic to a gay couple.  And certainly, the provision of those social goods to gay couples doesn't detract from the intrinsic benefits to straight couples or society at large.  Thus, I think some deeper thinking, not about marriage as a whole, but to the exclusion of gay couples is merited. 

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.  Do you think it's because people knew better about the proper relations between men and women and had a better understanding of sexual orientation?  Did people in 1750 think about same-sex marriage and decide against it?  Hell no.  Being gay was a capital crime in England until the 1860s.  During some of American history, sodomy was a capital offense.  People in America during the 20th Century went to jail for 20 years for being gay.  Gay sex was still criminalized in some of the US until 2003. 

That's the obvious answer, being gay was considered at best criminal and certainly immoral.  It wasn't this wise consideration of sexual orientation and what's best for society.  People were just rampantly homophobic until recently.  There was no wisdom of the ages used to consider this issue, because it was obscured by the incredibly stupidity and hatred of the ages.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Right. Homophobia is not "wisdom we've inherited from the past". It's just homophobia.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Because the vast majority of people are heterosexual. I don't see how that's a question that needed answering.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer. 

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

The reason why is that for most of history women were second class or even considered as nothing more than property.  Until recently marriage was not a union of two equals but a method of placing a woman under the protection of a male superior.  However, once marriage came to be seen as a union of two equals, the primary secular rationale for not allowing same-sex marriage evaporated.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

You really seem not to understand what I'm saying, so let me put it this way:  If you were to go back at pretty much any time in history more than a few decades ago and tell someone that the reason marriage is something between a man and a woman is because of anything to do with homosexuals, they would either think you were bonkers or were making a joke.

[Brittain33]

The one constant tradition about marriage is that it reflects the dominant values of society at the time and changes easily and rapidly to do so.

Shua's argument could just as easily be deployed against the use of camera phones to snap pictures at weddings. Every civilization in history excluded camera phones from weddings; they would have considered you crazy to ask them if camera phones were involved in weddings. We should consider their wisdom and default to their judgment.

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

The good news is that with American society passing the tipping point on gay rights in around 2012, vacuous appeals to tradition will no longer have to be accorded gravitas they do not merit.

[bedstuy]

Why did marriage in Anglo-American historical times exclude gay couples?  That's the question you need to answer.

Why is that the question?  Wouldn't the larger question be, "Why has marriage been a predominantly opposite-sex institution throughout history until very recently, both in historical contexts where homosexuality has been condemned as well as those where it has been tolerated"?

Which is a more plausible explanation?  Your mystery reason or my common-sense reason that I would venture to say is obvious.  You want to divorce this from some judgment of homosexuality, but that's just impossible, particularly when you want to rely on these vague reasons about what marriage might could possibly somehow something something.  Same sex marriage just wasn't considered until the 20th century.

We both agree that it wasn't considered. The question is why it wasn't considered.  I don't find your explanation of homophobia plausible as a general explanation (though certainly it is as a contributing one) since it is not applicable to all contexts where this social pattern exists.

If nobody considered same-sex marriage, how could they have any wisdom regarding same-sex marriage?

As to your other point, name a historical culture that accepted homosexuality such that it would have made sense to have same-sex marriage.  I've never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn't exist in US/Anglo-American history.  Anglo-American history is certainly the proper history to consult here because that's what our law is grounded on, not some hypothetical culture that tolerated homosexuality somewhere at some point.

You really seem not to understand what I'm saying, so let me put it this way:  If you were to go back at pretty much any time in history more than a few decades ago and tell someone that the reason marriage is something between a man and a woman is because of anything to do with homosexuals, they would either think you were bonkers or were making a joke.

You're right that I don't understand what you're saying. 

They didn't even consider gay marriage at all because they live in a world before the modern understanding of sexual orientation.  They didn't exclude gays necessarily out of malice specifically.  But, they didn't consciously exclude gay people from marriage for any reason that we need to credit today.  I guess your point is that they made a secret judgment that marriage is only one man and one woman and their judgment is correct because of super secret reasons you can't divulge.  ]

My point is that we can't trust 19th century or early 20th century judgment on including gay people in anything because they had a completely different understanding of homosexuality than you and I do.  And, especially when one of those judgments deprives people of equal civil rights, the burden should be on your side to make at least rational argument why gay people can't get married. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

[Brittain33]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

Since you specified Russia, both convert to Russian Orthodoxy.  More generally in 1790, the bride converts to her husband's religion and the the father allows the marriage only if he finds such a conversion acceptable.  The idea that a husband and wife need not share the same religion first requires the idea that the wife remains a separate person from her husband once she has married him.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

There have been interfaith marriages in many places and times across millennia, but perhaps it was not possible in the case you mention given the institutional arrangement of that setting. But the prohibition is implicit is in the refusal of the religions to conduct and sanction such a union is it not?  Cannot a person conceive of something which may not possible in actuality? My impression is that it isn't that it would be considered not a true marriage for two people of different religions to wed, but that a person could not be considered a true follower of their religion if they did so. Perhaps in some theology it would not be considered a true marriage either, but then they probably wouldn't consider it a true marriage if two people married who were both of the same 'false' religion either. 

As for your camera-phone comment, it doesn't work as an analogy because a camera phone at a wedding would not have a meaningful opposite to people in the past. To say "there was no camera phone at a wedding" would not make any more sense than to say "there was a camera phone at a wedding." On the other hand to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" would have made sense regardless of how much sense it would have made sense to say "marriage can be between a man and a man." Ancient peoples created myths and poems and art centered around the idea of marriage as a union between male and female. They didn't do any of that for the non-existence of cell phones.