LA judge upholds state SSM ban
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:04:34 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  LA judge upholds state SSM ban
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]
Author Topic: LA judge upholds state SSM ban  (Read 7354 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: September 15, 2014, 06:21:40 AM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

You're talking about the concept of "Separate spheres." Like mass-produced family tartans, this timeless tradition was an invention of Victorian England and was unknown in the 18th century, not to mention countries outside the Anglosphere.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: September 15, 2014, 06:24:34 AM »

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

Are you positing that "gays are icky" and "I don't want my kids to think being gay is ok" we're not a factor in the referenda of the 2000s? The advertising campaigns indicated this was a winning message. I'm talking about the referenda and amendments passed then, not the original absence of same-sex marriage from earlier laws.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: September 15, 2014, 08:04:49 AM »

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

Are you positing that "gays are icky" and "I don't want my kids to think being gay is ok" we're not a factor in the referenda of the 2000s? The advertising campaigns indicated this was a winning message. I'm talking about the referenda and amendments passed then, not the original absence of same-sex marriage from earlier laws.

No I was referring to the original reasons such laws were passed.

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

No, my point is that the two ideas are inextricably linked vis-a-vis gay people.

Actually, they aren't inextricably linked.  While it is not the case for Western society historically, there are examples of societies in which complementariness was not linked to homophobia.  Those societies however did so by believing there were more than two modes of human existence, yet in them these additional genders had specific marriage roles that either precluded them from marriage altogether or allowed it only with one of the heterosexual genders.  Complementariness only becomes linked with homophobia when a society only envisions two genders, inextricably linked to sexual anatomy.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: September 15, 2014, 08:07:00 AM »

So, surely, you can't take any practice from 1840 as it pertains to gay people in society and just copy-paste it into our society today without a thorough reexamination.  I'm sure you agree.

I agree.  Where I disagree is with the premise you seemed to hold to earlier in this thread that the views of 1840 can be disregarded without any effort at examination.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: September 15, 2014, 08:34:12 AM »

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

Are you positing that "gays are icky" and "I don't want my kids to think being gay is ok" we're not a factor in the referenda of the 2000s? The advertising campaigns indicated this was a winning message. I'm talking about the referenda and amendments passed then, not the original absence of same-sex marriage from earlier laws.

No I was referring to the original reasons such laws were passed.

How many states had laws explicitly prohibiting same-sex marriage before the 1990s? As opposed to laws which didn't address it or where common practice had been to assume a man and woman were applying?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: September 15, 2014, 09:14:55 AM »

Actually, they aren't inextricably linked.  While it is not the case for Western society historically, there are examples of societies in which complementariness was not linked to homophobia.  Those societies however did so by believing there were more than two modes of human existence, yet in them these additional genders had specific marriage roles that either precluded them from marriage altogether or allowed it only with one of the heterosexual genders.  Complementariness only becomes linked with homophobia when a society only envisions two genders, inextricably linked to sexual anatomy.

So, you could imagine a scenario in early America or England where there was simultaneously legal gay marriage and capital punishment for gay sex?  Do you think there was consideration of gay marriage in say 1800 at all? 

And, I don't understand these semantics.  I understand that there could be plenty of independent reasons that they had marriage for a man and a woman in history.  But, those reasons don't necessarily equate to why marriage was open to heterosexuals as opposed to homosexuals.  Anglo-American culture was incredibly homophobic and they didn't ever give serious consideration of extending these laws to gay couples.  That's the relevant history to our laws anyway.  The US and England are where we get our laws from, not some hypothetical culture where they considered "top," "bottom," "butch" and "femme" to be separate genders. 

So, surely, you can't take any practice from 1840 as it pertains to gay people in society and just copy-paste it into our society today without a thorough reexamination.  I'm sure you agree.

I agree.  Where I disagree is with the premise you seemed to hold to earlier in this thread that the views of 1840 can be disregarded without any effort at examination.

When did I say that?  I just want SSM opponents to be honest and open about their homophobic/religious fundamentalist views.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: September 15, 2014, 11:56:07 AM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

You're talking about the concept of "Separate spheres." Like mass-produced family tartans, this timeless tradition was an invention of Victorian England and was unknown in the 18th century, not to mention countries outside the Anglosphere.

That is just one form one form of the idea. What was somewhat new in Victorian England was an association between this gender complementarity and a public vs private sphere distinction.   

here's an interesting quote to put this into perspective:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Medieval and Renaissance Marriage

Anyone who has ever seen a Yin Yang symbol shouldn't doubt that the concept of gendered complementarity is ubiquitous in human culture.
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: September 15, 2014, 03:28:35 PM »

I still haven't seen any of the anti-SSM apologists actually defend their view. They've just said, "Hey, sometimes tradition is there for good reasons, maybe we shouldn't change it," without having the courage to say that they agree with those reasons, what those reasons are, and why they're relevant to us today.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: September 22, 2014, 08:28:13 PM »

A district judge rules the ban unconstitutional.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.