Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on "The Humanist Report"
channel.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@petermanou9083 Sorry but I believe you are wrong about ancient rome. "Conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[117] Furthermore, according to Susan Treggiari, "matrimonium was then an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man took a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he might have children by her."[118]" -End of excerpt from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
Granted that is from wikipedia, but that page is "locked" meaning it cannot be edited except by authorized experts and the information has been vetted by the authorized experts as accurate. Aside from that you can check the cited sources in the wikipedia article. It's possible the information I quoted is misleading but I have no reason to believe so at this time.
It may be true there are some cultures where same sex unions are considered equal to opposite sex unions but I don't know of any. Past research seemed to reveal that there are differences. For example, a spouse in a same sex union may not have all the same legal rights as a spouse in a heterosexual marriage. I challenge you to cite some evidence supporting your claim that same sex marriages which were regarded as equal to heterosexual marriages existed for 4 thousand years prior to the influence of Islam.
1
-
1
-
@petermanou9083 Even if what you say about the berbers is true it does not disprove the argument that, in general, homosexual unions were not regarded as equal to a marriage (between a man and a woman). In general, within the global community, homosexual relationships were regarded as of less significance than a heterosexual relationship/marriage, if even acceptable or permissable at all. This is the argument the LGBT community faces.
This is not my argument but rather one I have heard and am sharing here to prepare you for what may come. When I first heard that argument and did a fact check to debunk it I was astonished to find the facts supported it. This may not be immediately obvious because the term marriage is often used to describe the relationship. But this may be misleading because the use of the term, "marriage", to describe such relationships is arguably a mistranslation since these relationships were either not recognized by the law or were regarded differently, if accepted/permissible at all.
You see, whereas a spouse in a heterosexual marriage might have a right to keep at least a portion of their partners estate in the event of a divorce, this was not always the case where homosexual relationships were concerned. The reason for this difference was often due to reasons of child custody. Children cannot be borne from homosexual unions. So, the partners in homosexual relationships were regarded as simply a friendship which came with (sexual) "benefits" as opposed to the sort of relationship one would ever have reason to fear losing either their life or half their estate to if the relationship ever ended, either as punishment for defiling the marriage through adultery or because it was presumed their could be no children borne from such a relationship which would warrant giving half of one's estate to ensure the partner retaining custody of the children could properly raise the children. Understand?
1
-
@addie6833 The argument of conservative traditionalists is that marriage has always been between men and women only and never between those of the same gender. Their argument is the word, marriage, can therefore only apply to hetersexual unions and never homosexual unions.
Although the wikipedia article I cited says same sex "marriage" existed in ancient cultures, the article points out that the term marriage may be a mistranslation. Although homosexual unions were recognized as existing within those cultures, such unions were not accepted by all and they were not always recognized by law. Additionally, it is claimed such unions, when accepted, were usually regarded as of less significance than a heterosexual marriage on a social or legal level. In other words, homosexual unions, even when accepted in the eyes of society and law, were generally not regarded as equal to "marriage". See my last reply to another here to understand why there was a difference.
1
-
1
-
@petermanou9083 Again, the US gov laws are shaped by the majority through democracy so the few cultures which do allow for same gender unions which are regarded as equal to heterosexual unions, specifically a "marriage", most likely won't make a dent in changing the majority. Now, one could argue the minority has already made that dent since same gender marriages are now allowed and recognized as equal to heterosexual marriages by the gov and law. But as I explained, the USA is on the verge of civil war so I am not sure that law will still stand for long (at least in all states).
Even in the absence of a civil war that law is in danger of being repealed, as the video we are commenting on here explains. So, it doesn't matter whether I am right or wrong about whether same gender marriage has not existed in any culture or not because that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make: same gender marriage will most likely not be accepted within the US until it is accepted by a majority of the world's religions since the USA is a "melting pot" of the world's cultures wherein law tends to be shaped by majorities as opposed to minorities.
Now, I should point out that it is very likely that if there is a civil war some remnant of the USA as it currently exists will survive in some states. Not only that but it is also possible that the USA will be overtaken by blacks and native americans. Not only through the violence of civil war but also as a result of covid19 which reportedly actually targets those with neanderthal genes found mostly in whites and asians. South africans tend to be far less affected by covid19 because they have no neanderthal ancestry. I know it is said covid19 is affecting primarily the black community in the USA but that may be due to the high rate of false positive test results and also the policies motivating doctors and coroners to give a diagnosis of covid19 as the cause of illness or death. We can't be sure of what the actual numbers for covid19 are in the USA. The science on covid19 is also a tangled mess of contradictions but it is clear whites are far from immune. Quite the contrary in fact.
So, within a few years it may be that there will be few white traditionalists left in the USA, due to the effects of civil war and/or covid19. This may actually be in line with certain agendas of the UN which I have heard involve giving back the USA to the native americans. I should point out some believe many of the black slaves in the USA were NOT imported from africa after the discovery of the Americas by Columbus but rather existed as native americans taken captive by the settlers. There is evidence that blacks existed in the americas long before the arrival of the conquistadors. But back to the original topic, only time will tell what the future holds. Be aware the possibilities.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1