Same-sex marriage
(also referred to as "gay marriage")
is a term for a governmentally, or socially, recognized marriage between two people of the same sex. Same-sex marriage and gay marriage are the most common terms used in news media and politics. Other terms used are included below. PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 Proponents of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights;[1] the term "equal marriage" has also been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage.[2] Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.[3] Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage," and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay."[4] Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word marriage in scare quotes when referring to it. One notable publication that practices this is The Washington Times. Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the conservative American media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.[5] Same-sex marriage supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where such unions are legal.[6] Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."[7] Marriage proponents find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?," asks Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. "I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the
country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."[8] Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery."[9] However, in the case of one state in which same-sex marriages are recognized, Massachusetts, there is a long history of marriage being regarded as purely a civil institution, as illustrated in Governor William Bradford's history Of Plymouth Plantation: May 12 was the first marriage in this place [i.e., Plymouth] which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as a part of their office. The biological phenomenon that women become pregnant and give birth instead of men has shaped the formation of gender roles in world cultures. A single male can impregnate any number of females at once, while a single female is usually only impregnated by one male at a time. Even if there were only one man left on Earth, humankind could probably recover, depending on the man's health and fertility. The gene pool of the species would be somewhat impoverished, however, so the species would be less able to adapt to changes in its environment. On the other hand, if all but one female were wiped out, it is doubtful humanity could recover. For this reason, classical anthropology claims that species survival has generally dictated that the male be the one to leave the cave, village, or home and go out and face "the dangerous world", and "bring home the bacon", while the female stayed in the safety of the home and took care of the offspring. In fact, it appears that even in early historical times, it was not clear that there was any male role in reproduction there is no immediate correlation between sex and reproduction due to the delay in the obvious signs of pregnancy. However, all civilizations hit upon the concept of male reproduction and, even more importantly, male paternity, most likely from the correlation seen during the development of animal husbandry. The discovery of male paternity led to concepts such as male fathership of children, the importance of ensuring fidelity, the role of marriage as prima facie proof of paternity, and holding individual males responsible for the support of their offspring. Another school of thought (e.g. Jared Diamond in Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality) holds that the reasons behind the development of these concepts is biological, a result of a variety of unique elements of human sexuality (Sex for pleasure, hidden ovulation, etc.). Natural selection ensures that men that are able to be more certain of the parentage of the children they care for will be more likely to pass on their genes. This division has shaped many of the gender roles that survive to modern times. As humans have gained increased mastery of the environment,
these divisions become less and less relevant, but change, while it is taking place, happens gradually. evidence of attitudes towards sex comes from the ancient texts of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, the first of which are perhaps the oldest surviving literature in the world. These most ancient texts, the Vedas, reveal moral perspectives on sexuality, marriage and fertility prayers. Sex magic featured in a number of Vedic rituals, most significantly in the Asvamedha Yajna, where the ritual culminated with the chief queen lying with the dead horse in a simulated sexual act; clearly a fertility rite intended to safeguard and increase the kingdom's productivity and martial prowess. The epics of ancient India, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, which may have been first composed as early as 1400 BCE, had a huge effect on the culture of Asia, influencing later Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan and South East Asian culture. Images from the Kama Sutra. These texts support the view that in ancient India, sex was considered a mutual duty between a married couple, where husband and wife pleasured each other equally, but where sex was considered a private affair, at least by followers of the aforementioned Indian religions. It seems that polygamy was allowed during ancient times. In practice, this seems to have only been practiced by rulers, with common people maintaining a monogomous marriage. It is common in many cultures for a ruling class to practice polygamy as a way of preserving dynastic succession. PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 Art from the Ajanta Caves of India. India as a whole has as diverse a set of sexual 'behaviors' as any other society, such as adultery, homosexuality, transgenderism, exhibitionism, prostitution, sadism/masochism, zoophilia, and necrophilia, even though modern India society places greater taboo and emphasis of privacy on sex. Fresco murals from the Ajanta caves. The most publicly known sexual literature of India are the texts of the sixty-four arts. These texts were written for and kept by the philosopher, warrior and nobility castes, their servants and concubines, and those in certain religious orders. These were people that could also read and write and had instruction and education. The sixty four arts of lovepassion-pleasure began in India. There are many different versions of the arts which began in Sanskrit and were translated into other languages, such as Persian or Tibetan. Many of the original texts are missing and the only clue to their existence is in other texts. Kama Sutra, the version by Vatsyayana, is one of the well-known survivors and was first translated into English by Sir Richard Burton and F. F. Arbuthnot. The Kama Sutra is now perhaps the most prolific secular text in the world. It details ways in which partners should pleasure each other within a marital relationship. Sculpture from a temple at Khajuraho When the Islamic and Victorian English culture arrived in India, they generally had an adverse impact on sexual liberalism in India. Within the context of the Indian religions, or dharmas, such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, sex is generally either seen as a moral duty of each partner in a long term marriage relationship to the other, or is seen as a desire which hinders spiritual detachment, and so must be renounced. In modern
India, a renaissance of sexual liberalism has occurred amongst the well educated urban population, but there is still discrimination and forced marriage incidents amongst the poor. Within certain schools of Indian philosophy, such as Tantra, the emphasis in sex as a sacred duty, or even a path to spiritual enlightenment or yogic balance is greatly emphasized. Actual sexual intercourse is not a part of every form of tantric practice, but it is the definitive feature of left-hand Tantra. Contrary to popular belief, "Tantric sex" is not always slow and sustained, and may end in orgasm. For example, the Yoni Tantra states: "there should be vigorous copulation". However, all tantra states that there were certain groups of personalities who were not fit for certain practices. Tantra was personality specific and insisted that those with pashu-bhava (animal disposition), which are people of dishonest, promiscuous, greedy or violent natures who ate meat and indulged in intoxication, would only incur bad karma by following Tantric paths without the aid of a Guru who could instruct them on the correct path. In Buddhist tantra, actual ejaculation is very much a taboo, as the main goal of the sexual practice is to use the sexual energy towards achieving full enlightenment, rather than ordinary pleasure. Tantric sex is considered to be a pleasurable experience in Tantra philosophy. Mesopotamia Matriarchy was practiced in the earlier period of Mesopotamian civilization.[citation needed], the southern area of Babylonia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers to Assyria, the northern part of Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian society practiced sexual openness.[citation In ancient Mesopotamia, Ishtar was the primary Goddess of life, men and women, nature and fertility, sex, sexual power and birth. Ishtar was also the goddess of war and weapons and any victory was celebrated in her temples with offerings of produce and money as well as through a feast and orgy of sex and fornication with holy temple prostitutes. Every woman was required, at least once in her lifetime, usually after she was married, to go to the Temple of Ishtar. She waited there till any stranger came and threw silver in her lap. Then she left the temple and had sex with the stranger, after which she could return home. She was not allowed to refuse the first stranger.[citation needed] To quote the Greek historian Herodotus: "The worst Babylonian custom is that which compels every woman of the land once in her life to sit in the temple of love and have... intercourse with some stranger... the men pass and make their choice" With the changing time, the shift from matriarchy to patriarchy occurred.[citation needed]. With this shift, Ishtar lost some of her status and glory, and several male gods surfaced. Temples of Ishtar became abode to sacred prostitutes or priestesses known as Ishtaru or JoyMaidens and places for exchange of sexual services for a needed] price. This was in no way considered a shameful profession and laws were passed making it serious offence to talk badly about the holy prostitutes. In some temples of Ishtar, even male prostitutes (for the use of other men) were found. They were referred to as men "...whose manhood Ishtar has changed into womanhood." At a later stage of Babylonian culture, the attitude had changed: the Middle Assyrian Law Tablets, dating back to 12th century BC make it clear that some
kinds of homosexuality could lead to castration. As in most civilizations, incest of any kind was strictly forbidden and was considered a capital crime. China In the I Ching (The Book of Changes, a Chinese classic text dealing with what would be in the West termed metaphysics), sexual intercourse is one of two fundamental models used to explain the world. With neither embarrassment nor circumlocution, Heaven is described as having sexual intercourse with Earth. Similarly, with no sense of prurient interest the male lovers of early Chinese men of great political power are mentioned in one of the earliest great works of philosophy and literature, the Zhuang Zi (or Chuang Tzu, as it is written in the old system of romanization). China has had a long history of sexism, with even moral leaders such as Confucius giving extremely pejorative accounts of the innate characteristics of women. From early times, the virginity of women was rigidly enforced by family and community and linked to the monetary value of women as a kind of commodity (the "sale" of women involving the delivery of a bride price). Men were protected in their own sexual adventures by a transparent double standard. While the first wife of a man with any kind of social status in traditional society was almost certainly chosen for him by his father and/or grandfather, the same man might later secure for himself more desirable sexual partners with the status of concubines. In addition, bondservants in his possession could also be sexually available to him. Naturally, not all men had the financial resources to so greatly indulge themselves. Chinese literature displays a long history of interest in affection, marital bliss, unabashed sexuality, romance, amorous dalliances, homosexual alliances -- in short all of the aspects of behavior that are affiliated with sexuality in the West. Besides the previously mentioned Zhuang Zi passages, sexuality is exhibited in other fine works of literature such as the Tang dynasty Yingying zhuan (Biography of Cui Yingying), the Qing dynasty Fu sheng liu ji (Six Chapters of a Floating Life), the delightfully and intentionally salacious Jin Ping Mei, and the incredibly multi-faceted and insightful Hong lou meng (Dream of the Red Chamber, also called Story of the Stone). Of the above, only the story of Yingying and her de-facto husband Zhang fail to describe homosexual as well as heterosexual interactions. The novel entitled Rou bu tuan (Prayer mat of flesh) even describes cross-species organ transplants for the sake of enhanced sexual performance. Among Chinese literature are the Taoist classical texts. [1] This philosophical tradition of China has developed Taoist Sexual Practices which have three main goals: health, longevity, and spiritual development. PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 The desire for respectability and the belief that all aspects of human behavior might be brought under government control has until recently mandated to official Chinese spokesmen that they maintain the fiction of sexual fidelity in marriage, absence of any great frequency of premarital sexual intercourse, and total absence in China of the so-called "decadent capitalist phenomenon" of homosexuality. The result of the ideological demands preventing objective examination
of sexual behavior in China has, until very recently, made it extremely difficult for the government to take effective action against sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS. At the same time, large migrations to the cities coupled with significant amounts of unemployment have led to resurgence of prostitution in unregulated venues, a prominent accelerant of the propagation of STDs to many ordinary members of society. In recent decades the power of the family over individuals has weakened, making it increasingly possible for young men and women to find their own sexual and/or marriage partners. Japan A kabuki actor moonlighting as a sex worker, toys with his client; enjoying the favors of the serving girl. Nishikawa Sukenobu, Shunga-style woodblock print, ink on paper; Kyoho era (1716-1735) In what is perhaps the very earliest novel in the world, the Genji Monogatari (Tale of Genji), which dates back to around the eighth century CE, eroticism is treated as a central part of the aesthetic life of members of the nobility. The sexual interactions of Prince Genji, the central figure in this extremely long story, are described in great detail, in an objective tone of voice, and in a way that indicates that sexuality was as much a valued aesthetic component of cultured life as would be music or any other of the arts. While most of his erotic interactions involve women, there is one telling episode in which Genji travels a fairly long distance to visit one of the women with whom he occasionally consorts but finds her away from home for an extended period. It being late, and intercourse already being on the menu of the day, Genji takes pleasure in the availability of the lady's younger brother whom, he reports, is equally satisfactory as an erotic partner. From that time down at least as far as the Meiji Reformation, there is no indication that sexuality is treated in a pejorative way. While homosexuality was driven out of sight for some time, it seems to have continued unabated for it reemerged in the wake of the sexual revolution in the West with seemingly little if any need for a period of acceleration. Likewise, prostitution was practiced more discreetly but did not disappear. In Japan, sexuality was governed by many of the same social forces that make the culture of Japan considerably different from the culture of Western nations, and also different from the culture of China. In Japanese society, the primary method used to secure social control is the threat (and, occasionally, the actuality) of ostracism. Japanese society is a shame society.[citation needed] Therefore, more attention is paid to what is appropriate to expose to the view of other people than is paid to what behaviors would make a person "guilty." Also important is the strong tendency of people in Japanese society to group in terms of "in group" individuals and "out group" individuals. What may be open to knowledge by one's in group may be different from what is open to knowledge by one's out group, and, what may be avoided because of pressure by one's in group may be of little or no consequence in one's relationships to one's out group. A frequent locus of misconceptions in regard to Japanese sexuality is the institution of the geisha. Rather than being a prostitute, a geisha was a woman trained in arts such as music and cultured conversation, and who was available for non-sexual interactions with her male clientele. These women
differed from the wives that their patrons probably had at home because, except for the geisha, women were ordinarily not expected to be prepared for anything other than the fulfillment of household duties. This limitation imposed by the normal social role of the majority of women in traditional society produced a diminution in the pursuits that those women could enjoy, but also a limitation in the ways that a man could enjoy the company of his wife. The geisha fulfilled the non-sexual social roles that ordinary women were prevented from fulfilling, and for this service they were well paid. That being said, the geisha were not deprived of opportunities to express themselves sexually and in other erotic ways. A geisha might have a patron with whom she enjoyed sexual intimacy, but this sexual role was not part of her role or responsibility as a geisha. As a superficial level, in traditional Japanese society women were expected to be highly subservient to men and especially to their husbands. So, in a socionormal description of their roles, they were little more than housekeepers and faithful sexual partners to their husbands. Their husbands, on the other hand, might consort sexually with whomever they chose outside of the family, and a major part of male social behavior involves after-work forays to places of entertainment in the company of male cohorts from the workplace -- places that might easily offer possibilities of sexual satisfaction outside the family. In the postwar period this side of Japanese society has seen some liberalization in regard to the norms imposed on women as well as an expansion of the de facto powers of women in the family and in the community that existed unacknowledged in traditional society. In the years since people first became aware of the AIDS epidemic, Japan has not suffered the high rates of disease and death that characterize, for example, some nations in Africa, some nations in Southeast Asia, etc. In 1992, the government of Japan justified its continued refusal to allow oral contraceptives to be distributed in Japan on the fear that it would lead to reduced condom use, and thus increase transmission of AIDS.[1] As of 2004, condoms accounted for 80% of birth control use in Japan, and this may explain Japan's comparably lower rates of AIDS. ancient Greece, the phallus, often in the form of a herma, was an object of worship as a symbol of fertility. This finds expression in Greek sculpture and other artworks. One ancient Greek male idea of female sexuality was that women envied penises of males. Wives were considered as commodity and instruments for bearing legitimate children. They had to compete sexually with eromenoi, hetaeras and slaves in their own homes. Homosexuality, in the form of pederasty, was a social institution in ancient Greece, and was integral to education, art, religion, and politics. Relationships between adults were not unknown but they were disfavored. Lesbian relations were also of a pederastic nature. Ancient Greek men believed that refined prostitution was necessary for pleasure and different classes of prostitutes were available. Hetaera, educated and intelligent companions, were for intellectual as well as physical pleasure, Peripatetic prostitutes solicited business on the streets, whereas temple or consecrated prostitutes charged a higher price. In Corinth, a port city, on the Aegean Sea, the temple held a
thousand consecrated prostitutes. Rape - usually in the context of warfare - was common and was seen by men as a “right of domination”. Rape in the sense of "abduction" followed by consensual lovemaking was represented even in religion: Zeus was said to have ravished many women: Leda in the form of a swan, Danaë disguised as a golden rain, Alkmene disguised as her own husband. Zeus also ravished a boy, Ganymede, a myth that paralleled Cretan custom. Etruria The ancient Etruscans had very different views on sexuality, when compared with the other European ancient peoples, most of whom had inherited the IndoEuropean traditions and views on the gender roles. Greek writers, such as Theopompus and Plato named the Etruscan 'immoral' and from their descriptions we find out that the women commonly had sex with men who were not their husbands and that in their society, children were not labelled "illegitimate" just because they did not know who the father was. Theopompus also described orgiastic rituals, but it is not clear whether they were a common custom or only a minor ritual dedicated to a certain deity. Rome See also: Homosexuality in ancient Rome The sexual atmosphere in the earlier stages of Roman civilization included celebrations associated with human reproductive organs. Over time there emerged institutionalization of voluntary sex as well as prostitution. This resulted in a virtual sexual caste system in Roman civilization – different grades and degrees of sexual relationships. Apart from the legally wedded spouses, a number of males used to have Delicatue, the kept mistresses of wealthy and prominent men. The next were the Famosae (literal meaning: soiled doves from respectable family), mostly the daughters and even wives of the wealthy families who enjoyed sex for its own sake. Then, there was another class known as Lupae, who were willing to have sexual union with anyone for a price. Copae (literal meaning: bar maids) were the serving girls in the taverns and inns and who did not mind being hired as bedmates for the night by travelers. Handsome adolescent menservants known as concubini would serve their master in bed, until they matured and fell into disfavor. The sexual revolution The sexual revolution was a substantial change in sexual morality and sexual behaviour throughout the West in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One factor in the change of values pertaining to sexual activities was the improvement of the technologies used for the control of fertility. Prime among them, at that time, was the first birth control pill. Psychology and sex Especially before the development of dependable methods of contraception, the control of sexual behavior was of extreme practical importance to parents in some societies. The methodologies employed by parents to try to prevent their children from prematurely becoming parents themselves could have a profound effect on the minds of those children. In some societies, guilt was inculcated in an attempt to prevent premarital sexual activity, and the guilt could contaminate the entire self image of the individuals who, after all, were biologically predetermined to have the "guilty" sexual impulses that their families (and, usually, their religions) were trying to head off.[citation needed][neutrality disputed] In other societies, shaming was done with the same goals and
with similar psychological damage possible. The ability to function sexually depends a great deal on activities that occur not in the sexual organs but in the brain. When the individual has been psychologically traumatized by abusive practices intended to control premarital sexual activities, he or she may be unable to perform well even after marriage has presumably Main article: Sexual revolution legitimized sexual intercourse. Dysfunctions for males may include: inability to achieve an erection, penile insensitivity, premature ejaculation, etc. For the female they may include: frigidity, inability to achieve orgasm, vaginismus, etc. These problems may lead to secondary problems if, for instance, affected individuals self medicate with alcohol, marijuana (in the case of premature ejaculation), or even more dangerous drugs. The treatment of sexual dysfunctions and the problems of low self esteem, guilt, self-destructive impulses, etc., has been one of the main activities of helping professions such as psychiatry, clinical psychology, etc. Samesex relations “May life grant all that you desire from three lips, those of your lover, the river, and the cup.” Louvre, Paris Historiographic considerations Interestingly, while the reverse is often not true, much of the history of different-gender sexuality and romance may be read from the history of same-sex sexuality and romance. The term "homosexuality" was invented in the 19th century, with the term "heterosexuality" invented later in the same century to contrast with the earlier term. The term "bisexuality" was invented in the 20th century as sexual identities became defined by the predominate sex to which people are attracted and thus a label was needed for those who are not predominantly attracted to one sex. This points out that the history of sexuality is not solely the history of different-sex sexuality plus the history of same-sex sexuality, but a broader conception viewing of historical events in light of our modern concept or concepts of sexuality taken at its most broad and/or literal definitions. Historical personalities are often described using modern sexual identity terms such as straight, bisexual, gay or queer. Those who favour the practice say that this can highlight such issues as discriminatory historiography by, for example, putting into relief the extent to which samesex sexual experiences are excluded from biographies of noted figures, or to which sensibilities resulting from same-sex attraction are excluded from literary and artistic consideration of important works, and so on. However, many, especially in the academic world, regard the use of modern labels as problematic, owing to differences in the ways that different societies constructed sexual orientation identities and to the connotations of modern words like "queer." For example, in many societies same-sex sex acts were expected, or completely ignored, and no identity was constructed on their basis at all. Academic works usually specify which words will be used and in which context. Readers are cautioned to avoid making assumptions about the identity of historical figures based on the use of the terms mentioned above. Ancient Egypt Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by many to be the first male couple in recorded history. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth
Dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal confidantes" in their joint tomb. PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 Ancient Greece Greek men had great latitude in their sexual expression, while their wives were severely restricted and could hardly move about the town unsupervised. It was said that a woman could travel about town freely only if she was old enough that people would ask not whose wife she was, but whose mother. Unmarried adult women had more freedom, but often had to sell their favors to survive. Besides the common prostitutes there was a class of highly educated and paid entertainers known as hetairas who frequented men's symposia, drank with them, debated politics and philosophy with them, and slept with them. Men could also seek adolescent boys as partners as shown by some of the earliest documents concerning samesex pederastic relationships, which come from Ancient Greece. Often they were favored over women. One ancient saying claimed that "Women are for business, boys are for pleasure." Though slave boys could be bought, free boys had to be courted, and ancient materials suggest that the father also had to consent to the relationship. Such relationships did not replace marriage between man and woman, but occurred before and concurrent with it. A mature man would usually not have a mature male mate, though there frequent exceptions (among whom Alexander the Great) but he would be the erastes (lover) to a young eromenos (loved one). Dover suggests that it was considered improper for the eromenos to feel desire, as that would not be masculine. Driven by desire and admiration, the erastes would devote himself unselfishly to providing all the education his eromenos required to thrive in society. In recent times, Dover's theory has been questioned in light of massive evidence of ancient art and love poetry that suggests a more emotional connection than earlier researchers liked to acknowledge. Some research has shown that ancient Greeks believed semen to be the source of knowledge, and that these relationships served to pass wisdom on from the erastes to the eromenos. Ancient Rome Edward Gibbon • Tiberius • Caligula and Lepidus • Nero and Sporus • Otho • Elagabalus • Hadrian and Antinous The deification of Antinous, his medals, statues, temples, city, oracles, and constellation, are well known, and still dishonor the memory of Hadrian. Yet we remark, that, of the first fifteen emperors, Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct. -- • Trajan It was said by some that Julius Caesar, at the age of twenty, had an affair with King Nicomedes of Bithynia. Of his tastes, a political opponent once said that "He is every woman's man and every man's woman." The Middle Ages Two male lovers are burned at the stake, Zurich 1482 (Zurich Central Library) Through the medieval period, homosexuality was condemned and thought to be the moral of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Historians debate if there were any prominent homosexuals and bisexuals at this time, but it is argued that figures such as Edward II, Richard the Lionheart, Philip II Augustus, and William Rufus were engaged in same-sex relationships. Renaissance Chaucer's Pardoner [2] 19th century • Oscar Wilde • Boston marriage • Edward Carpenter
• The single-sex public school • Seafarers Early twentieth century For events in Germany see the articles on Magnus Hirschfeld and History of Gays during the Holocaust. China • See Homosexuality in China. • "Passion of the cut sleeve" - Emperor Ai of Han China and Dong Xian • "Passion of the half-eaten peach[3]" Ling (534 - 493 B.C.E.) and Mizi Xia Psychiatry Freud, among others, argued that neither predominantly different- nor samesex sexuality were the norm, instead that what is called "bisexuality" is the normal human condition thwarted by society. A 1901 medical dictionary lists heterosexuality as "perverted" different-sex attraction, while by the 1960s its use in all forums referred to "normal" different-sex sexuality. In 1948 Alfred Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, popularly known as the Kinsey Reports. Homosexuality was deemed to be a psychiatric disorder for many years, although the studies this theory was based on were later determined to be flawed. In 1973 homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in the United Kingdom. In 1986 all references to homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder were removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The sexual revolution During the Sexual Revolution, the different-sex sexual ideal became completely separated from procreation, yet at the same time was distanced from same-sex sexuality. Many people viewed this freeing of different-sex sexuality as leading to more freedom for same-sex sexuality. Gayrights movement See also Gay rights, Timeline of LGBT history and Category:LGBT history. Stonewall riots Main article: Stonewall riots PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 The Stonewall riots were a series of violent conflicts between New York City police officers and the gay men and transgender women at the Stonewall Inn, a gay hangout in Greenwich Village. The riot began on Friday, June 27, 1969. "Stonewall", as it is often called, is considered the start of the modern gay rights movement in the U.S. and worldwide. It was the first time any significant body of gays resisted arrest. For many, this is the primal scene of the modern gay rights movement, although some advances in gay rights had taken place previously (Canada had legalized sodomy earlier that year, whereas France had legalized it in the 18th century). Religion and sex Although not the case in every culture, most religious practices contain taboos in regard to sex, sex organs and the reproductive process. Judaism In Jewish law, sex is not considered intrinsically sinful or shameful when conducted in marriage, nor is it a necessary evil for the purpose of procreation. Sex is considered a private and holy act between a husband and wife. Certain deviant sexual practices, enumerated below, were considered gravely immoral "abominations" sometimes punishable by death. The residue of sex (as with any lost bodily fluid) was considered ritually unclean outside the body, and required ablution. Recently, some scholars have questioned whether the Old Testament banned all forms of homosexuality, raising issues of translation and references to ancient cultural practices. However, rabbinic Judaism had unambiguously condemned homosexuality. law • And
God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be The Torah, while being quite frank in its description of various sexual acts, forbids certain relationships. Namely, adultery, some forms of incest, male homosexuality, bestiality, and introduced the idea that one should not have sex during the wife's period: • You shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth. (Genesis 1:28) to become defiled by her. (Lev. 18:20) • Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Lev. 18:22) • And with no animal shall you cohabit, to become defiled by it. And a woman shall not stand in front of an animal to cohabit with it; this is depravity. (Lev. 18:23) • And to a woman during the uncleanness of her The above passages may, however, open to modern interpretation. The original meanings of these verses did not change, but their interpretation may have changed after they were translated into English and other languages. separation, you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness. (Lev. 18:19) Christianity Christianity supplemented the Jewish attitudes on sexuality with two new concepts. First, there was the idea that marriage was absolutely exclusive and indissoluble, thereby restricting the sphere of sexual activity and eliminating the husband's ability to divorce at will. Second, there was the notion of virginity as a moral ideal, rendering marital sexuality as a sort of concession to carnal weakness and the necessity of procreation. New Testament The Council of Jerusalem decided that, although Jesus may have admonished Jews to keep to their traditions and laws, these were not required of gentiles converting to Christianity, who did not, for instance, need to be circumcised, and could continue to consume shellfish. The Council's final communication to the various gentiles' churches was, Acts 15:29 It is unclear exactly which sexual practices are considered fornication (sometimes translated as sexual That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. scattered injunctions against adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, and incest, consistent with earlier Jewish ethics supplemented by the Christian emphasis on chastity. • It is good for a man not to touch a woman. (1 Corinthians 7:1 (KJV)) • They that have wives be as though they had none; (1 Corinthians 7:29) Later Christian Thought A general consensus developed in medieval Christianity that sexual acts were at least mildly sinful, owing to the necessary lust involved in the act. Nonetheless, marital relations were encouraged as an antidote to temptations to promiscuity and other sexual sins. St. Augustine opined that before Adam's fall, there was no lust in the sexual act, but it was entirely subordinate to human reason. Later theologians similarly concluded that the lust involved in sexuality was a result of original sin, but nearly all agreed that this was only a venial sin if conducted within marriage without inordinate lust. In the modern era, many Christians have adopted the view that there is no sin whatsoever in the uninhibited enjoyment of marital relations. More traditional Christians will tend to limit the circumstances and degree to which sexual
pleasure is morally licit. Hinduism In India, Hinduism accepted an open attitude towards sex as an art, science and spiritual practice. The most famous pieces of Indian literature on sex are Kamasutra (Aphorisms on Love) and Kamashastra (from Kama = pleasure, shastra = specialised knowledge or technique). This collection of explicit sexual writings, both spiritual and practical, covers most aspects of human courtship and sexual intercourse. It was put together in this form by the sage Vatsyayana from a 150 chapter manuscript that had itself been distilled from 300 chapters that had in turn come from a compilation of some 100,000 chapters of text. The Kamasutra is thought to have been written in its final form sometime between the third and immorality). Throughout the New Testament, there are fifth century AD. Also notable are the sculptures carved on temples in India, particularly the Khajuraho temple. The frank depiction of uninhibited sex hints towards a liberated society and times where people believed in dealing openly with all aspects of life. On the other hand, a group of thinkers believe that depiction of sexually implicit carvings outside the temples indicate that one should enter the temples leaving desires (kama). Apart from Vatsyayana's Kamashastra, which is no doubt the most famous of all such writings, there exist a number of other books, for example: • The Ratirahasya, literal translation - secrets (rahasya) of love (rati, the union); • The Panchasakya, or the five (panch) arrows (sakya); • The Ratimanjari, or the garland (manjari) of love (rati, the union) • The Anunga Runga, or the stage of love. The Secrets of Love was written by a poet named Kukkoka. He is believed to have written this treatise on his work to please one Venudutta, considered to be a king. This work was translated into Hindi years ago and the author's name became Koka in short and the book he wrote was called Koka Shastra. The same name crept into all the translations into other languages in India. Koka Shastra literally means doctrines of Koka, which is identical with the Kama Shastra, or doctrines of love, and the names Koka Shastra and Kama Shastra are used indiscriminately. Islam In Islam sexual intercourse is allowed only after marriage and only with one's spouse. Sex outside of marriage, called zina, is considered a sin and strictly prohibited. According to the chapter Al-Israa', verse 32 of the Qur'an, Allah (God) prohibits Muslims from getting close to (engaging in) zina. Politics of sex With the rise of government and laws, personal behaviors, including sex, became increasingly politicized. The politics (and, therefore, laws) in regards to sex vary widely. In several countries (and different states of countries) there are or were, laws, both civil and religious, forbidding some sexual practices or to forbid sexual intercourse between partners of difference races. Laws that forbid to have sex with a person younger than a fixed age are very common. The laws generally fit into the following types. • Partner laws regulate the choice of the partner on the following attributes: specie, state, sex, age, number, group, time. • Specie (human/non-human): Permitted: a human partner. Not permitted: a non-human partner. e. g. sex with animals (zoophilia) is not permitted. • State (living/dead): Permitted: a living human. Not permitted: a dead one e. g. sex with the dead (necrophilia) is not permitted. • Sex
(opposite/same): Permitted: a living human of the opposite sex. Not permitted: a living human of the same sex e. g. sex with the members of one's own sex Homosexual sex) is not permitted. • Age: Permitted: a partner with a certain age. Not permitted: a partner with an age less than a certain age. These restrictions are of two types. • Absolute age: Permitted: a partner with the age greater than or equal to the age of consent as determined by the applicable law. Not permitted: a partner with the age less than the age of consent. The value of Age of consent ranges from 9 to 21. • Relative age: Permitted: a partner with the age greater (or less) than one's own age. Not permitted: a partner with the age less (or greater) than one's own age. E. g. a law that prohibits the woman being elder to the man. • Number (one/many): Number of partners for sexual activity. • At a single sexual encounter: e. g. monogamy (monandry, monogyny) and polygamy (polyandry, polygyny)). • At any given time in life: e. g. monogamy monogyny) and polygamy (monandry, (polyandry, polygyny)). • At different times in life: Permitted: only one partner at a time e. g. serial monogamy. Not permitted: polygamy (polyandry, polygyny)). • Group: Permitted: a partner from one's own race, religion, caste, creed, community and/or group. Not permitted: a partner outside one's own race, religion, caste, creed, community and/or group. These are of two types. • Same: Permitted: a partner from the same group. Not permitted: a partner from a different group. • Different: Permitted: a partner from a different group. Not permitted: a partner from the same group. E. g. sex with one's bloodrelatives (incest), sex with the members of one's own sex (homosexual sex) are prohibited. • Time: The time in the life of the partner e. g. a law that prohibits the woman from engaging in sexual activity while she menstruates. • Activity laws regulate the choice of the sexual activity e. g. a law that prohibits genital-genital intercourse. Activity laws are of the following types. The laws sorted in the decreasing order of perceived severity for a single (number) living (state) adult (absolute age) human (specie) being: • Legend AT = Attribute Type = [ A: Absolute | R: Relative ] A relative attribute takes its value relative to a single living human being. PT = Permission Type = Proponents of same-sex marriage often use the term "equal marriage" to stress that they seek equality as opposed to special rights;[1] the term "equal marriage" has also been used by feminists to describe any marriage, regardless of the sex of the partners, in which the partners have equal status within the marriage.[2] Opponents argue that equating same-sex and opposite-sex marriage changes the meaning of marriage and its traditions.[3] Some opponents use the term "homosexual marriage," and surveys have suggested that the word "homosexual" is more stigmatizing than the word "gay."[4] Some publications that oppose same-sex marriage put the word marriage in scare quotes when referring to it. One notable publication that practices this is The Washington Times. Cliff Kincaid, a writer for the conservative American media watchdog group Accuracy in Media, agrees with this method, arguing that "marriage" is a word that same-sex couples merely want to apply to themselves, but have no legal ability to do so in most states.[5] Same-sex marriage
supporters argue that it is editorializing and implying inferiority, and point out that the quotes are even used when referring to same-sex marriages in locations where such unions are legal.[6] Some have suggested reserving the word "marriage" for religious contexts, and in civil and legal contexts using a uniform concept of civil unions. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, for instance, wrote that such an arrangement would "strengthen the wall of separation between church and state by placing a sacred institution entirely in the hands of the church while placing a secular institution under state control."[7] Marriage proponents find such a suggestion impractical. "Why do we suddenly have to throw out the entire system, invent some whole new thing, just because gay people want to get married?," asks Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry. "I don’t actually see Alan Dershowitz doing anything about this, other than writing an article, because he probably rightly understands it would be an immense project to go around the country and convince 200 million plus people to trade in their marriage for something new and explain why we are doing this when we actually have a legal system that already clearly distinguishes between civil and religious marriage."[8] Conservative critics like National Review's Jennifer Morse contend that the conflation of marriage with contractual agreements is itself a threat to marriage that "has undermined more heterosexual marriages than anything, with the possible exception of adultery."[9] However, in the case of one state in which same-sex marriages are recognized, Massachusetts, there is a long history of marriage being regarded as purely a civil institution, as illustrated in Governor William Bradford's history Of Plymouth Plantation: May 12 was the first marriage in this place [i.e., Plymouth] which, according to the laudable custom of the Low Countries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civil thing, upon which many questions about inheritances do depend, with other things most proper to their cognizance and most consonant to the Scriptures (Ruth iv) and nowhere found in the Gospel to be laid on the ministers as a part of their office. [10] PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 There is evidence that same sex unions have occurred since the beginning of recorded history in Egypt, China, Greece, Rome and Japan. [11] Famous lovers include the Egyptian couple Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum and the Greek couple Harmodius and Aristogiton. The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [12] The rise of Christianity changed attitudes to same-sex unions and led to the persecution of gays. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.[13] In the year 390, the Christian emperors Valentinian II, Theodosius and Arcadius declared homosexual sex to be illegal and those who were guilty of it were condemned to be publicly burned alive. [14] Status of same-sex unions in Europe. Same sex marriage recognised Civil unions recognised Unregistered cohabitation recognised
Issue under political consideration Unrecognised or unknown Same sex marriage banned Marriage, as defined by the civil law, is currently available to same-sex couples in six countries. The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001. Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with 2 States in the United States, Massachusettes and California. In 1996, the United States Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman amongst other stipulations.[15] As of May 2007, twenty-six states have passed constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage.[16], eighteen of which prohibit the legal recognition of any samesex union. Nineteen additional states have legal statutes that define "marriage" as a union of two persons of the oppositesex.[17] The territory of Puerto Rico ratified a similar statute in 1998. Nonetheless, some states are beginning to offer legal recognition to samesex couples, whether in the form of marriage or as civil unions or domestic partnerships. As of June 17, 2008, Massachusetts and California permit same-sex couples to marry. The states of Vermont, Connecticut, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer civil unions. Also, California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that grant all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Maine, Washington, and the District of Columbia grant certain limited benefits through domestic partnerships, and Hawaii has reciprocal beneficiary laws. Laws Regarding Same-Sex Partnerships in the United States Same-sex marriages Unions granting rights similar to marriage Unions granting limited/enumerated rights Foreign same-sex marriages recognized Statute bans samesex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage Constitution bans same-sex marriage and other kinds of same-sex unions At the federal level, Australia bans recognition of samesex marriage, but the current federal Australian Labor Party government favours synchronised state and territory registered partnership legislation (as in Tasmania) although the Australian Capital Territory favours the introduction of civil unions with official ceremonies. By stark contrast, same-sex marriage in Canada was preserved when a proposed repeal bill failed at its first reading in 2006, while New Zealand's Parliament similarly heavily defeated a private members bill that would have prohibited same-sex marriage in New Zealand in December 2005. However, as far as current jurisprudence goes, New Zealand's Marriage Act 1955 still recognises only opposite-sex couples as marriageable (although it has also included transsexuals who have undergone reassignment surgery as the 'opposite sex' for these purposes, since Family Court and High Court of New Zealand decisions in 1995. Israel's High Court of Justice ruled to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other countries, although it is still illegal to perform them within the country. A bill was raised in Knesset to rescind the Israeli High Court's ruling, but the Knesset has not advanced the bill since December 2006. (This makes the practice of same-sex marriage, as far as Israel is concerned, like the performance of a Reform or Conservative Jewish wedding.) Canada and Spain are the only countries where the legal status of same-sex marriage is exactly the
same as that of opposite-sex marriage, though South Africa is due to fully harmonize its marriage laws. Other nations all have requirements or restrictions that apply to same-sex marriage that do not apply to opposite-sex marriage. Civil unions The first same-sex union in modern history with government recognition was obtained in Denmark in Main article: Civil union 1989. Civil unions, civil partnership, domestic partnership, unregistered partnership/unregistered co-habitation or registered partnerships offer varying amounts of the benefits of marriage and are available in: Andorra, Australia (except Commonwealth law), Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary (unregistered co-habitation since 1996; registered partnership from 2009), Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and Uruguay. They are also available in some parts of Argentina, Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul), Mexico (Federal District and Coahuila), the U.S. states of California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.). Two men marrying in Amsterdam within the first month that marriage was opened to same-sex couples in the Netherlands (2001) In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage. Civil unions in New Zealand are identical to British civil partnerships in their association with equivalent spousal rights and responsibilities to fully-fledged opposite-sex marriage. Australia provides under all states, territories and two council areas either a registry system provided in; Sydney, Melbourne, Tasmania and Victoria; or Unregistered partnership provided in; Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, Norfolk Island, Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales. However, Commonwealth law provisions and statutes prohibit the recognition of civil unions, civil partnerships and same-gender marriages; fifty-eight (58) Legislative Acts of the Commonwealth use the phrase 'member of the opposite sex'. However, Commonwealth law still recognises same-sex partner under "interdependancy relationship" for anti-terrorism legislation, migration of same-sex partner, private superannuation schemes and Federal military and ADF services only.[18] In 2007 Grace Abrams and Fiona Power became Australia's first legally recognised same sex married couple [8] after Grace Abrams had gender modification surgery and was later officially granted a passport with female status. A Pride March in 2005, celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage in Spain A registered partnership in Scandinavia is nearly equal to marriage, including legal adoption rights in Sweden and, since June, in Iceland as well. These partnership laws are short laws that state that wherever the word "marriage" appears in the country's law will now also be construed to mean "registered partnership" and wherever the word "spouse" appears will now also be construed to mean
"registered partner" - thereby transferring the body of marriage laws onto same-sex couples in registered partnerships. In these countries, registered partnerships are generally called marriage in daily speech. In some countries with legal recognition the actual benefits are minimal. Many people consider civil unions, even those which grant equal rights, inadequate, as they create a separate status, and think they should be replaced by gender-neutral marriage.[19] International organizations The terms of employment of the staff of international organizations (not businesses) are not, in most cases, governed by the laws of the country in which their offices are located. Agreements with the host country safeguard these organizations' impartiality with regard to the host and member countries. Hiring and firing practices, working hours and environment, holiday time, pension plans, health insurance and life insurance, salaries, expatriation benefits and general conditions of employment are managed according to rules and regulations proper to each organization. The independence of these organizations gives them the freedom to implement human resource policies which are even contrary to the laws of their host and member countries. A person who is otherwise eligible for employment in Belgium may not become an employee of NATO unless he or she is a citizen of a NATO member state.[20] The World Health Organization has recently banned the recruitment of cigarette smokers.[21] Agencies of the United Nations coordinate some human resource policies amongst themselves. Despite their relative independence, few organizations currently recognise same-sex partnerships without condition. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the agencies of the United Nations voluntarily discriminate between opposite-sex marriages and same-sex marriages, as well as discriminating between employees on the basis of nationality. These organizations recognize same-sex marriages only if the country of citizenship of the employees in question recognizes the marriage. In some cases, these organizations do offer a limited selection of the benefits normally provided to opposite-sex married couples to de facto partners or domestic partners of their staff, but even individuals who have entered into an opposite-sex civil union in their home country are not guaranteed full recognition of this union in all organizations. However, the World Bank does recognize domestic partners.[22] PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 Anticipated demand in the United Kingdom In the United Kingdom, the government is reported to have anticipated demand for same-sex civil partnerships as being around 11,000 to 22,000 by 2010. However, this appears to have been an underestimate;[original research?] as of December 2006 some 15,657 such partnerships had been registered in around 9 months.[23] Wikinews has related news: When sex is defined legally, it may be defined by any one of several criteria: the XY sex-determination system, the type of gonads, or the type of external sexual features. By all of these definitions both transsexuals and intersexed individuals are legally categorized into confusing gray areas, and could be prohibited from
marrying partners of the "opposite" sex or permitted to marry partners of the "same" sex due to arbitrary legal distinctions. This could result in long-term marriages, as well as recent same-sex marriages, being overturned. An example of the problem with chromosomal definition would be a woman with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS), who would have a 46,XY karyotype, which is typically male. Although she may have been legally registered as female on her birth certificate, been raised as a female her entire life, have engaged in heterosexual female relationships, and may even have married before the status of her condition was known, Interview with gay marriage movement founder Evan Wolfson using the chromosomal definition of sex could prevent or annul the marriage of a woman with this condition to a man, and similarly allow her to legally marry another woman. These same issues were faced by the IOC to determine who qualified as a female for the women's competitions.[24] The problems of defining gender by the existence/nonexistence of gonads or certain sexual features is complicated by the existence of surgical methods to alter these features. Although it has not been exhaustively stated by a court, it is possible that a court could find that if a person has their gonads removed (not limited to a sex-change but also for medical disorder, such as testicular cancer or removing sexual ambiguity), they would enter a sexual limbo status and fail to meet either set of criteria, thus excluding them from any allowance to marriage. This situation could easily occur through exclusionary findings by separate courts in a state that already does not recognize transsexual marriages to people of the same sex as their birthsex, as in the case of Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras. Basing the distinction on genital appearance is complicated by available surgery converting typically male genitalia to typically female genitalia, which has advanced to the point where, even were a genital inspection necessary, many transgendered women would pass this inspection without question. Requiring a surgical reassignment for definition of gender for the purpose of declaring a marriage valid comes with further problems. The female-to-male sex reassignment surgery is expensive and does not provide results as satisfactory as its counterpart; therefore many female-to-male transsexuals choose not to undergo this procedure. In a situation where genitalia legally defines gender and same-sex marriage is not permitted, the transsexual man would therefore only be allowed to legally marry another man if he wished to marry. These complications are probably more likely than one would think at first glance; according to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity, and between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including sometimes involuntary surgery to address their sexual ambiguity.[25] In any legal jurisdiction where marriages are defined without distinction of a requirement of a male and female, these complications do not occur, and some legal jurisdictions may recognize a legal and official change of gender, which would allow one to satisfy the requirement of either "male" or "female" according to their
gender- identity within their legal definition of marriage. Although some legal jurisdictions continue to only recognize the "immutable traits determined at birth." (Linda Kantaras vs. Michael Kantaras) In the United Kingdom, recent legislation allows transsexual persons to be officially recognized in their new gender, but this has the effect of annulling any previous marriage. However the couple will now be able to register a civil partnership, to come into force immediately upon the dissolution of their marriage In countries with legal systems based on the Napoleonic codes, being legally recognized as one's transitioned gender may require conditions of infertility, where if a transsexual were ever found to have had a child, it would result in a reversal of a legal sex change and spontaneous annulment of the marriage if that country does not recognize same-sex marriages. In the United States, transsexual and intersexual marriages typically run into the complications detailed above. As definitions and enforcement of marriage is defined by the state, these complications will vary from state to state. In Massachusetts no problem should arise in seeking to get a marriage, or enforcing that marriage, however marriage in states that have more prohibitive definitions, any marriage with a transsexual could face challenge in a court based on any number of criteria. (For discussions on the status of marriages involving transgendered persons see Julie A. Greenberg, Defining Male and Female: Intersexuality and the Collision Between Law and Biology, 41 Ariz. L. Rev. 265 (Summer 1999); and Michael L. Rosin, Intersexuality and Universal Marriage, 14 L. & Sex. 51 (2005) as well as the references they contain controversy over recognition of same-sex unions as marriages is a small, albeit very important, part of a larger controversy concerning the role of government in recognizing and regulating intimate relationships. While there are few instances of societies recognizing same-sex unions as marriage, the historical and anthropological record reveals a remarkable variety of treatment of same-sex unions ranging from sympathetic toleration to indifference to prohibition. The 2004 Statement by the American Anthropological Association relies upon this variety in reaching its conclusion that same-sex unions can "contribute to stable and humane societies":[26] The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon samesex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies. Some disagree with the idea of government recognition of any marriages, arguing that the personal relationships of citizens are not a proper issue of governmental concern. This view is often expressed by those who see the only legal issues related to marriage involving the nature and extent of parties’ consent to the relationship. Proponents of this view argue that the parties should define almost all aspects of the relationship, in much the same way that parties to other types of contracts are generally free to define the terms of their agreement.
Prenuptial and postnuptial agreements arise among those holding this view.[27] Others, including many gay rights advocates, assert that legal recognition of marriage is based upon the government's interest in encouraging stable, committed relationships. Stable relationships reduce the need for society (sometimes through government) to provide support for its members. Each spouse safeguards the other's well being by, at times, acting as a nurse, banker, policeman, etc. Examples include demanding the keys to the car when one or the other has had too much to drink, or staying home to care for the other after surgery,[28] or paying debts owed by a husband or wife.[29] Advocates for recognition of same-sex unions argue that there is no difference in the ability of samesex and oppositesex couples to make commitments and care for each other, and therefore the law of marriage should apply to both.[30] A third approach to marriage is based on the belief that the government's involvement in marriage arises from the consequences of sexual acts between men and women – namely the creation of children. Based on research showing that, on average, children do best when raised by their biological parents in a low-conflict marriage,[31] proponents argue that legal marriage is society’s way of encouraging monogamy and commitment by those who may create children through their sexual coupling. [32] These advocates acknowledge that not every opposite couple is capable of creating a child through sexual acts, but they argue that all laws are over inclusive in some aspect and to create exact congruence marriage and child-bearing capacity would require unacceptable inquiries by government at the time of issuing marriage licences.[33] No such intrusion is necessary to conclude that no sexual act between same-sex partners will result in childbearing, and therefore it is proper to exclude these couples from the legal definition of marriage. Opponents of marriage within the gay community also object to the same-sex marriage movement, even though their concerns pertain to the institution of marriage, rather than to the gender of its participants. They argue that seeking marriage as a means to social benefits and recognition reinforces the exclusion of other persons, notably the single and those in families composed of three or more intimate partners, from these benefits.[34] From this perspective same-sex marriage is a conservative movement within LGBT politics. Religious arguments Historian John Boswell claims the 4th century Christian martyrs Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were united in the rite of adelphopoesis, or brother-making, which he calls an early form of religious same-sex marriage Some opponents object to same-sex marriage on purely religious grounds. Opponents often claim that extending marriage to same-sex couples will undercut the conventional purpose of marriage as interpreted by cultural, religious, sexual, and traditional understanding.[35] Furthermore, opponents argue that same-sex marriage cannot fulfill common procreational roles, and/or sanctions a partnership that is centered around sexual acts that their respective religion prohibits. For example, James Dobson, in Marriage Under Fire and elsewhere, states that legalization or even tolerance of same-sex marriage would redefine the family, damage traditional family unions, and lead to an
increase in the number of homosexual couples. The Roman Catholic Church also opposes recognition of same-sex unions, arguing that acts of sexual intimacy are only proper between a man and a woman, and that the proper setting for those acts is only within marriage. Government inclusion of any other unions within the definition of "marriage" would reflect a belief in the moral equivalence of acts between a husband and wife and acts between two men or two women; this belief many find erroneous, in turn, would form the basis for public education requirements[36] and legal enforcement of that view through laws restricting the actions of those who continue to believe that sexual acts between members of the same sex are not morally acceptable.[37] Inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage would also evidence rejection of the idea that, in general, it is best that children be raised by their biological mother and father, and that it is the community's interest in insuring the well-being of children that forms the basis for the government's licensure and involvement in marriage.[38] Conservatives and some moderate Christians further claim that homosexuality goes against biblical teaching, and extend this to same-sex marriage. As an example, there is the Bible verse Genesis 19:5, which many Biblical scholars believe indicates that homosexual behavior led to the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.[39] Other passages are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, and in the New Testament of the Bible, I Corinthians 6:8-10 and Romans 1:24-27.[40] While these passages do not define the institution of marriage, Genesis 2:22-24 reads as follows: "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,' for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh."[41] This passage is quoted by Jesus in the New Testament Gospel of Matthew.[42] However, other moderate and liberal Christians claim that Biblical passages concerning homosexual behavior are taken out of full textual, historical and cultural contexts, and are not applicable to homosexual relationships as we know them today. They view the passages about Sodom and Gomorrah as referring to systematic rape and inhospitality. They view the passages in Leviticus as part of the Holiness Code and strictly reserved to the Israelites of that time. Some of this Holiness Code is not practiced by contemporary Christians (e.g., prohibitions on wearing mixed fabrics, a proscription of the consumption of pork, the sacrifice of animals as atonement for sins), while other parts such as the prohibitions on incestuous relations still are. For some modern Christians, the passage in Romans is seen as relating more to specific instances of Greco-Roman temple sex acts and idolatrous worship and it is not intended to address contemporary homosexuality.[43] Other modern Christians hold that Romans 1 proscribes all homosexual behavior, regardless of its relational context.[44] Judaism, like Christianity, reflects differing views between conservative and liberal adherents. Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members
of the same sex. The Orthodox Union in the United States supports a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.[45] Some Conservative Jews reject recognition of same-sex unions as "marriage," but permit celebration of commitment ceremonies, in part as an expression their belief that scripture requires monogamy of all sexually active couples. [46] Members of Reform Judaism support the inclusion of same-sex unions within the definition of marriage. [47] The Jewish Reconstructionist Federation leaves the choice up to the individual rabbi.[48] There are some people who, despite having a moral or religious stance that same-sex marriage is wrong, still feel that it is not their place to take their religious sentiments into the secular realm, and enforce their beliefs on others who may disagree. So, while these religious people do not approve of homosexual couples and continue to refuse to recognize their marriages from a religious aspect, they nevertheless recognize and tolerate their secular marriage. Some modern religions and denominations perform samesex weddings. At the 1996 Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, delegates voted overwhelmingly that because of "the inherent worth and dignity of every person," samesex couples should have the same freedom to marry that other couples have.[49][50] PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008 [ Social arguments Those who advocate that marriage should be defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman argue that heterosexual unions provide the procreative foundation of the family unit that is the chief social building block of civilization. Social conservatives and others may see marriage not as a legal construct of the state, but as a naturally occurring "pre-political institution" that the state must recognize as it recognizes other natural institutions such as jobs and families. "Government does not create marriage any more than government creates jobs."[51] They argue that the definition proposed by same-sex marriage advocates changes the social importance of marriage from its natural function of reproduction into a mere legality or freedom to have sex. These sides of the argument may refer to themselves as "defenders" of traditional marriage. As any customary relationship may be considered "marriage," some argue that this then leads to undue legislative burden and an affront to the social value and responsibility of parenting one's own children. The dissent by Justice Martha Sosman in the decision of the Massachusetts high court that legalized same-sex marriage in that state makes a societal argument without specifying the harm that would occur from this change.[52] Asserting the a priori importance of marriage as an institution, she questions whether the burden of proof that this would be harmless has been met. Her analysis can be seen as an example of precautionary principle, which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. A common objection to same-sex marriage is that the purpose of marriage is a result of naturally occurring sexual attraction that leads to procreation, and that the same-sex
partnership is inherently sterile. Some who hold this view see marriage as the social codification of an evolved long-term mating strategy, with economic and legal benefits to facilitate family growth and stability. Others argue that because the law does not prohibit marriage between sterile heterosexual couples or to women past menopause, the procreation argument cannot reasonably be used against same-sex marriage, particularly since technological advances allow gay couples to have their own related biological children.[54] Another view is that all marriages should thus be viewed legally as "civil unions." These civil unions would then only receive the benefits of marriage which do not require expenditures from the government (e.g., tax breaks), and any monetary benefits would only be awarded based on the number of children living in a household. Dissidents to the same-sex marriage movement within the gay community argue that the pursuit of social recognition and legal benefits (e.g., health care insurance) by means of marriage reinforces marriage as an institution of exclusion, because it extends rights and benefits to people on the basis of their relationship status.[55] Some of these rights (e.g., health care insurance), they argue, should be made available to all people, including those who are single and those whose families are composed of three or more intimate partners. Some also argue that seeking marriage as a way of legitimating gay parenting reinforces cultural biases and discrimination against single parents. Lastly, some note that the same-sex marriage movement reinforces a cultural bias against being single in adulthood, treating it as abnormal, undesirable, or immature. Some same-sex marriage proponents, such as Andrew Sullivan, argue that same-sex marriage is moral enough to support the familycentered role that marriage plays in society despite the absence of biological children. Supporters also argue that the institution of marriage would be strengthened by making it available to more people, and furthermore that same-sex marriage would encourage gays and lesbians to settle down with one partner and raise families. Others argue that marriage no longer retains a procreative function of the government since many governments offer child tax credits and assistance regardless of marital status. Also, many people argue in favor of same-sex marriage because they say that sexual orientation is uncontrollable. They cite many scientific studies which claim [56] that no one can choose or change their sexual orientation, and that forbidding marriage between two people of the same sex is like forbidding marriage between two people of the same eye color, skin color, or nose length. Some believe that sexual orientation is genetically determined, just like these traits, and thus should not be cited as a basis for discrimination. In contrast, opponents of same-sex marriage (including some ex-gay organizations) argue that homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable.[57][58] Same-sex marriage opponents support this position with research as well as anecdotal evidence regarding efforts to overcome unwanted same-sex attractions.[59][60][61][62] Some opponents of same-sex marriage reason that if homosexuality is not genetic or unchangeable, then it is not unjust for government to define marriage as the union of one woman and one man.[63] Another argument in favor
of traditional marriage is that it reflects the biological imperative and innate construct between males and females; that despite the natural desire to procreate, there is also a biological desire to mate with the opposite gender. Hence the fundamental differences between males and females is seen as natural; and such difference exists independently of religion or social prejudice. This view posits that marriage has a universally important shared public meaning, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This meaning has been construed as a a constitutive core of the institution. That core meaning is essential in influencing the forming of the individual identity to an extent that common sense readily comprehends.[64] Proponents[who?] of same-sex marriage point out that "traditional" concepts of marriage in actuality have already undergone significant change. Polygamy has been prohibited, married women are no longer considered the property of their husbands, divorce is legal, contraception within wedlock is allowed, and antimiscegenation laws forbidding interracial marriage have been eliminated in most modern societies. The fact that changes in the customs and protocols of marriage often occur gives rise to the argument that marriage is dynamic, and same-sex marriage is only the latest evolution of the institution. Opponents[who?] of such a point of view note that the prohibition of interracial marriage, opposition to polygamy, legality of divorce and the concept of the wife as the property of the husband, have been dependent upon any given society, throughout history. None have been an historical norm, either as accepted or prohibited. These forms of marriage have had varying degrees of acceptance or formation throughout cultures, societies, and civilizations in recorded history. These opponents note that "marriage" between members of the same gender in historical incidence are speculative at best, and in fact have little if any historical record. In opposing same-sex marriage in various state courts, a common key state's argument against allowing samesex marriage has been the use of legal marriage to foster the state's interest in human reproduction. In Anderson et al. v. King County in which several same-sex couples argued that the state of Washington's version of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law was constitutional. Writing in the majority opinion, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote in 2006: (See also Same-sex marriage in Washington, Same-sex marriage and procreation) In responding to this argument in 2007, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance, a supporter of same-sex marriage, began a petition drive to place a ballot measure on the November 2007 ballot that would require opposite-sex couples who marry to have children within three years or have their marriages become legally unrecognized. Couples seeking a marriage license would also have to show they can produce children. The group admits this ballot initiative aims at calling attention to the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Anderson and the logical extension of this reasoning to childless and/or sterile heterosexual couples. In terms of numbers, the 2000 U.S. Census reports more The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers
procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are brought up in homes headed by children's biological parents. Census Bureau estimates that this number would be over 770,000 in 2005.[65] While a post-Census study by UCLA economist Dr. M.V. Lee Badgett found that there was a significant undercount of same-sex couples in 2000, the Census reports that among the couples answering they are a same-sex couple: one-third of lesbian couples and one-fifth of gay male couples have children under 18 living in the home.[66] Some object on the grounds that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt or raise children or to have access to reproductive technologies, and that same-sex marriage would make such arrangements easier. A number of health and child welfare organizations, however, disagree. They include the Child Welfare League of America, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Association of Social Workers.[67] On July 28, 2004, the American Psychological Association's Council of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting legalization of same-sex civil marriages and opposes discrimination against lesbian and gay parents.[68] Noted Harvard political philosopher and legal scholar John Rawls supported gay marriage and didn't see any problem with it unless it could be shown it would somehow undermine the welfare of children, for which he did not believe there was an argument.[9] He is joined with philosophers Robert Nozick, Martha Nussbaum, Cornel West and Susan Moller Okin among others, who see the issue as a matter of justice within family and society. than 600,000 same-sex couples (unmarried domestic partners on the Census form) in the United States. The PeopleNology Same Sex Marriage Gregory Bodenhamer Nollijy University Research GregoryBodenhamer@Live.com Copyright 2008