Comments by "Sasha S" (@sashas3362) on "" video.

Gay marriage is a new thing. Never existed in history before now. Same gender unions existed before but were not regarded as equal to a marriage between a man and woman.
1
@petermanou9083 No, those weren't marriages. As I said, there were same gender unions but they weren't regarded as equal to a marriage between a man and a woman. I'm not taking sides in this debate. I'm only pointing out the fact that never in history has the LGB community ever wanted to have same gender marriages which would be regarded as equal to the marriage between a man and a woman...until now in recent years/decades. Prior to this new unprecedented desire for same gender marriage, the LGB community was content with other legally recognized and socially acceptable unions amongst those of the same gender which were regarded as of less significance or subsequent to that of the marriage between a man and a woman. Even in cultures where same gender unions were considered acceptable and normal such unions were considered to be of less significance to a marriage which was a union reserved only for a man and a woman. Suddenly the LGB community around the world wants the right to marry with the marriage being recognized as equal to that of the marriage between a man and a woman. Why is that? Perhaps it is because the LGB community of today is not the same as the LGB community which existed previously. Perhaps the LGB person which exists in modern times has a mind more like that of the opposite gender than the LGB person of the past, making them want a marriage like those of the opposite gender.
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
@petermanou9083 According to the wikipedia articles, the roman emperors were an exception. They had the power to make law. So the Emperor's same-gender spouses may have been recognized by the gov and/or legal system. But for others, same gender spouses had no legal standing in rome. As far as other cultures such as the Berbers and native americans are concerned I cannot say for certain. I can't find much info about the berbers and I am only aware of some native american tribes/nations which recognized the union between transgenders and cisgender men or women which is not quite the same as same gender unions. I would need to see some proof that berbers and native americans recognized same gender unions as equal to heterosexual unions before I would be convinced. Feel free to share whatever evidence you have. With that said I must confess I am suspicious it may be the truth is being suppressed. You shouldn't believe everything you read online. Even the references cited in the wikipedia entry I quoted leads me to question whether the truth is being suppressed. I encourage you to question what you read.
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
@petermanou9083 I still haven't seen any evidence that any cultures have had same-gender marriages which were equal to heterosexual marriages. So I'll stand by my original statement until I see irrefutable evidence to the contrary. No offense but I don't consider your objection here to be evidence to the contrary. You mentioned writings which support the oral tradition but failed to cite any evidence supporting your claims. You gave some pretext about berber culture not being well documented as an excuse. Sorry but if it's not well documented then you simply won't be able to prove your claim. So I stand by my original argument until somebody can PROVE it wrong. Yet, I am willing to concede that argument may be wrong. If so then I will revise my argument to say that in general, within the global community, same gender unions have not been regarded as equal to heterosexual marriage. This is not moving the goalpost because even if it is proven a few cultures did regard such unions equal to a heterosexual marriage such traditions would be rare exceptions and would not be likely to change the traditions here in the USA. You see, here in the cultural melting pot of the USA, law often tends to be shaped by the majority since it is created by both the people themselves through democracy or through democratically elected representatives. So if the majority of the world's cultures did not regard same gender unions as equal to heterosexual unions then we should not expect the US gov to recognize them as equal. We should only expect the US to regard them as equal only after the world's cultures begin to recognize them as equal. Culture is defined more by religion than by gov so when I say the world's cultures I don't mean merely the world's governments but also the world's religions. But even if the majority of both the world's religions and governments were to someday embrace same gender unions and regard them as equal to heterosexual marriage US law might have established that the terms marriage, husband and wife or spouse is reserved for heterosexual unions only by that time. I doubt that will happen in the US though because the recent supreme court ruling which made discrimination against homosexuals a form of sex discrimination which is forbidden by title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. But I'm not sure the USA as we now know it will still exist for much longer. I don't doubt that a so-called "USA" will exist in the future but I am not sure it will be based on the same laws or even the same constitution. There are groups who want a return to an older form of the US gov, by abolishing the IRS and the federal reserve bank (as a separate entity) and repealing the 13th and 14th amendments and replacing the existing 13th amendment with the (original) "missing 13th amendment" (AKA the "titles of nobility amendment") and making only common law the law of the land, for example. Some even want to return to the articles of confederation or something like it and abandon the constitution. Others want to establish a monarchical form of government. The US is on the verge of civil war (some say it has already started) so it's not hard for me to believe that the laws we presently take for granted such as the laws which protect the LGBT community may not be protecting them much longer.
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
@petermanou9083 How does systemic racism hold people of color back when there are racist equal opportunity laws which give people of color the advantage of preferential treatment over other races in the jobs they apply for? Also, I did not say black native americans didn't come from africa. I simply said they made it to the american continent before the conquistadors, perhaps before any others. It's debateable whether blacks actually originated in africa though. The out of africa theory has been challenged. You talk as though this debate were settled in favor of those who believe blacks originated from africa. It isn't. Stay tuned and I will share some links about that.
1
@petermanou9083 You're the one making idiotic claims which aren't backed up by any evidence.
1
@petermanou9083 I see why you say what you said. Apparently I posted a comment here intended for another conversation I had going on elsewhere online. My apologies. You don't know the context of what was being said so disregard that comment. Just so you know, although it may SEEM I was arguing against washing of hands to prevent disease (in that reply I accidentally posted here), I wasn't. I was actually promoting the advantages of a new type of non-mutagenic disinfectant skin cleanser over currently used soaps. As I said you have no way to know what I was talking about or saying so please disregard without prejudice.
1
For those who are interested, here are those links containing purported proof of africans in the americas before the arrival of the conquistadors which I promised to share. Stay tuned for more. https://youtu.be/gA7TbxuBSg0 https://youtu.be/K-FG2oWl-2k https://youtu.be/YLgK0xzK_2U Not to say I believe the USA should be given to black people who can prove they are native americans or whatever it may be. But it looks like at least part of the USA may be given to the blacks. Probably to justify giving another part to the whites. These would no doubt be racially segragated regions where no whites would be allowed in the region given or taken by the blacks and no browns allowed in the whites only region. A few years ago it was reported that the black panthers and other black groups were working with the KKK towards a common goal of preserving their races by combatting race mixing and supporting racial segregation, after all.
1
The fact that sex discrimination (as defined by title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) was recently decided to include discrimination against LGBT people (in the Supreme Court ruling of Bostock v Clayton County Georgia) would seem to prevent local (state/county/city) governments from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. I don't see how marriage equality for same-sex couples could be overturned without contradicting and violating the Bostock v Clayton County Georgia ruling by commiting sex discrimination against the LGBT community...unless the 14th amendment were repealed. But even if the 14th amendment were repealed, same-sex marriage would still seem to be recognized on the federal level by United States v Windsor which was decided based on the unrepealable 5th amendment, a fundamental and unalienable right enumerated in the Bill of Rights (IMO).
1