Gay unions accepted as routine in cultures for centuries

Salt Lake City Tribune ^ | Feb 29, 2004 | Will Bagley

[george wythe]

Marriage, says BYU law professor Richard G. Wilkins, "has always been about one sexual relationship -- the union of a man and a woman." Of course, this would be news to Brigham Young, who said "I do" to some 56 women.

    Consider the furor and outrage Mormon polygamy evoked in the 19th century.

    The laws sanctifying the one-man, one-woman model of marriage had forced millions upon millions of women "to become a prey to man's lust and a consuming sacrifice upon the altar of illicit passion," the Deseret Evening News thundered in December 1885.

    "One man to one woman only," the newspaper proclaimed, was "the exception in Christendom as well as heathendom" and was "one impracticable standard."

    The News argued that polygamous marriage "prevails all over the world, and those who pretend to the contrary are very simple or very untruthful." That's a debatable point, even though it appeared in the pages of what The Salt Lake Tribune used to call "the font of truth," but marriage has been a flexible institution throughout history.

    Much of the current debate over same-sex marriage reflects a relatively new tradition of fear and hatred of homosexuals in American culture. The concept of homosexuality only appeared in European medical literature in the late 1860s and reached the United States by 1892, but it was the sodomy trial of British poet Oscar Wilde in 1895 that introduced the concept to popular culture.

The "queer eye" was nothing new, however, even in Utah.

    When Wilde (popularly known as the "Sunflower Apostle") visited Salt Lake City in 1882, he complimented LDS Church President John Taylor for his fine aesthetic judgment, and the Deseret News reported that young men adorned with enormous sunflowers filled the front row of his crowded lecture on interior decorating. (None of this was a stereotype in 1882.)

    The Victorians turned it into an identity, but same-sex sex has been going on since time immemorial and was considered entirely natural in ancient Greece and Rome.

    First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill didn't actually say "the only traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash," but he may have wished he had.

    Rather than treat gay people as social outcasts, many cultures integrated men and women with transsexual natures into their societies. When French Jesuit missionaries found men among the Iroquois who dressed and acted as women, they called them berdache, incorrectly equating them with male prostitutes.

    Many scholars now prefer the term "two-spirit." American Indian languages had a variety of terms -- winkte (Lakota), nadleeh (Navajo), hemanah (Cheyenne), kwid-(Tewa), tainna wa'ippe (Shoshone), dubuds (Paiute) and lhamana (Zuni) to identify "a person who has both male and female spirits within," notes Lakota scholar Beatrice Medicine.

    Anthropologists such as Elsie Parsons long ago observed that two-spirited men often married other men. Even earlier, William Clark told the first editor of the Lewis and Clark journals that Hidatsa boys who showed "girlish inclinations" were raised as women and married men.

    Somehow, male-female marriage managed to survive in these cultures. Marriage even survived polygamy, which had extended the "blessings of matrimony and of home instead of discarding or destroying them," the Deseret News argued. "It surrounds the domestic relations with safeguards and a sacredness that are stronger and more enduring than any others."

    Restricting such a good thing seems selfish.

Historian Will Bagley is happily married.

[Kaslin]

Gay unions accepted as routine in cultures for centuries

Yeah suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

< /sarcasm >

[OhhTee5]

This issue depends on what some of your core beliefs are.

In the issue of homosexuality, answer the following question: Do you believe homosexuality is a "choice" or is it the way someone is "hard-wired" to be.

In my opinion, I have seen way to much suffering from homosexuals to believe it's a choice. Why would someone choose a homosexual lifestyle, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

Here's an example, when I was in the military, I was temporarily assigned to a hospital. There was a retired serviceman who was dying, his partner of over 20 years could not be with him, as visitation was permitted to "family" members only. Since they couldn't be married, his life-partner couldn't be with him during the last few days of his life. Could you imagine that? Not being with your wife or husband in the same situation because you weren't recongnized as a family?

It just doesn't make sense. Additionally, there have been numerous anthropology studies where some animals and birds have formed homosexual relationships. How could they "choose" that?

This issue is more about money, then it is morality.

For example, If homosexuals are granted the same status as heterosexual couples, the federal and state governments would have an immediate expense increase for health care benefits, etc. The same coverage that now applies to heterosexual couples would be mandated for homosexual couples and they don't want the added expense.

I believe like prohabition and sufferage rights, sooner or later homosexuals will enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals, so why not sooner then later?

[Angelus Errare]

Not sure about the Mormon afterlife being a Catholic myself, but my understanding is that mainstream LDS church believes that polygamy is not inherently sinful but rather that they should obey the laws of the land on this particular issue.

[EdReform]

Ping

What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

The Stamp of Normality

[OpusatFR]

" Many scholars now prefer the term "two-spirit." American Indian languages had a variety of terms -- winkte (Lakota), nadleeh (Navajo), hemanah (Cheyenne), kwid-(Tewa), tainna wa'ippe (Shoshone), dubuds (Paiute) and lhamana (Zuni) to identify "a person who has both male and female spirits within," notes Lakota scholar Beatrice Medicine."

That's nice. Not our culture.

[Angelus Errare]

I think you're setting up a straw man argument here.

The fact that it isn't an innate biological function doesn't necessarily make it a conscious function. I'm not too comfortable with this whole issue of biological determinism for complex behaviors myself. A unique mixture of psychological, developmental, and maybe even biological stuff sounds far more plausible to me.

I also don't think that giving homosexuals marriage is the only way to address the type of issue that you bring up there.

Another thing you might want to consider as to why so many people are pissed about this turn of events is that the gay lobby has decided to take a collective dump on the faces of many Americans because too many of us aren't right-thinking enough. This is an important arena of public policy and they want to conduct the discussion without actually getting the public involved. More to the point, there is little if any reason as to imagine that efforts to redefine our society by going over the beliefs of the people would stop here.

[george wythe]

I'm uncertain

Thanks for your honest response.

I was thinking about comments I've read on this site. For instance, look at this thread where Arabs were ridiculed for their alleged inclination toward homosexual sex.

[Restorer]

I've read many reports from Westerners about homosexual sex being common in Arab countries, but men always end up getting married in order to continue the family name.

The whole idea that most men who engage in homosexual activity are primarily or exclusively homosexual in "orientation" is a remarkably modern theory. For most of history it was generally accepted that any moral concern about such practices was mostly with whether one was the "penetrator" or the "penetrated." The first did not make one a homosexual or an object of contempt, the second most definitely did.

Don't agree with this, but it is historically quite true. Still applies today in the special subculture in our prisons.

[MEGoody]

Bestiality has been going on since the beginning.

Pedophilia has been going on since the beginning.

Rape has been going on since the beginning.

Murder has been going on since the beginning.

Just because people have chosen to be perverted and hateful since the beginning doesn't mean we should legalize it.

[EdReform]

Homosexuality & Same-Sex "Marriage" (Ancient Roman Satirist Slams Gays)

[Restorer]

The only problem with your theory is that it applies equally well to any other variety of perversion.

Why would anyone "choose" to be a pedophile, knowing the incredible hostility society (for now) holds towards them? If nobody would choose it voluntarily, then the desire to have sex with children must be inborn. If inborn, it is inherently wrong to punish or condemn them for their actions.

The same would apply to those who derive sexual pleasure from dominating, torturing or killing others, not to mention those who prefer sex with animals or corpses.

The theory is inherently unsound.

[george wythe]

I believe like prohabition and sufferage rights, sooner or later homosexuals will enjoy the same benefits as heterosexuals, so why not sooner then later?

If I were a betting man, I would bet good money that your prediction is correct.

I don't see how Massachusetts can be stopped, so gay marriages will become a reality on May 2004.

There is talk about a Constitutional Marriage Amendment, but it's just that, talk.

To break the filibuster on conservative judges, the US Senate only needed 60 votes, but the Republicans could not deliver.

To pass a constitutional amendment, the US Senate needs 67 votes, very unlikely in my humble opinion.

At present, I don't even see a 2/3 majority in the House for Constitutional Marriage Amendment either.

[MEGoody]

"Why would someone choose a homosexual lifestyle, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?"

Why would someone choose a lifestyle of pedophilia, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

Why would someone choose adultery, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

Why would someone choose bestiality, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

Why would someone choose to become a drug addict, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

Why would someone choose to become an alcoholic, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

You get the point.

[Angelus Errare]

I've seen such comments as well on this and in other forums, but here again I'm uncertain as to whether or not they have any basis in fact or are simply a symptom of wartime perception of the enemy.

[george wythe]

Just because people have chosen to be perverted and hateful since the beginning doesn't mean we should legalize it.

Absolutely correct.

Nevertheless, the editorial seems to be addressing only the "Human history or tradition is on our side" argument against gay unions.

[BadAndy]

"Among certain Native American peoples, a person, usually a male, who assumes the gender identity and is granted the social status of the opposite sex"

This just proves that native americans were not immune to mental illneses.

It is also not clear that just because a male would assume the duties of a woman, or even "marry" a man, that that relationship included sex. Sometimes it was a sign of shame for cowardess or another infraction.

[onedoug]

Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

[Jimmyclyde]

All homosexual men are built for heterosexual sex, all of them.

What they do with each other is abnormal and against nature.

No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

[Jimmyclyde]

Why would someone choose to become an liberal, knowing the incredible array of problems facing them?

[george wythe]

For most of history it was generally accepted that any moral concern about such practices was mostly with whether one was the "penetrator" or the "penetrated." The first did not make one a homosexual or an object of contempt, the second most definitely did.

If I recall correctly, the Mexicans make also that distinction.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I tend to infer the following meaning to these Mexican slang words:

Buga Straight

Bugarrón Mostly straight, but sometimes has gay sex as a "top"

Maricón Mostly homosexual, especially a "bottom"