Historical support for Gay marriage?

An acquiantance asked me a question regarding my beliefs on the government’s role in denying gay marriage. I responded saying I don’t believe marriage should be redefined and that it is between a man & a woman. That being said, I still think people should be able to have the same rights when it comes to legal issues of health, property, etc.

Now he is providing links (which I don’t have time to read right now), supposedly showing the historical support for gay marriage. How would you respond graciously? :shrug:

Here are the links provided:


I have referred him to a couple of good reads (IMO).

Here is his reponse:
“The first article has been proven incorrect by the scientific community. Gay parents have proven themselves to be upstanding citizens and reliable parents just as heterosexual families have. They have also proved to not raise immoral children… in fact statistically far less that heterosexual families.
To also say that homosexuality perverts sex is ridiculous. It occurs in the animal world. It occured before any written history of religion claimed it to be a perversion… and the fact still remains that the government’s place is maintain social functionality… not limit the rights of one for the benefit of the moral belief of organizations beyond government.
and the second article is inherently ridiculous in that it compares gay marriage to long term roommates having sex. Gay couples can adopt. They can raise children and tie ostracized remnants of society back in, with the intention to give them a stable homelife and carrying parental figures. If you agree they should have the same rights as a married couple… then you are arguing a word.
sex does not equal marriage. we all know this. having children does not even equal marriage… as you have NO problem with secular couples, or infertile couples getting married. Where does the difference lie?”

I’d ask him: in ancient pagan cultures, pedarest (sexual relation between an adult male amd young/adolesant male) was tolerated and even encouraged. Does that make it right?

Mesoamerican tribes such as the Mayans sacrificed humans. Does that make it right?

Just because other cultures believed such activity was okay doesn’t mean that it is. If your friend says “the ancient pagans practiced same sex marriage, it must be alright” then he is opening up a can of worms for every other atrocity comitted by these same people.

You said it all.:thumbsup:

Should the government provide the same benefits to gay couples who are in a committed long-term (for-life) relationship, as they do to married couples? If not, why not?

I would think they should be provided the same rights when it comes to medical information/decisions and health-care coverage at the least. I mean, my husband will get to decide medical issues for me if I’m unable to do so - why shouldn’t a gay couple be able to do that?:blush:

I agree with you!! I don’t think anyone chooses to be homosexual. I really do think they are born that way. It makes me sad to think that they would be denied rights given to other couples. So I guess I’m for civil unions where legal rights as a couple are recognized.

My understanding is that any person can be assigned that privilege by means of a legal document. It’s a little more work but AFAIK, nobody is preventing gay couples from doing that. I believe with a lot of legal issues, its not that it’s impossible for gay couples to do things, it’s just a little more complicated.


I remember reading about a study (don’t have a link right now) that showed that children of homosexual parents had, on average, worse test scores than those of heterosexual parents. Also, if he makes such a claim, then you should ask him to give you a link to the study so you can see the legitimacy of how the study was performed.

But, we are above animals, are we not? And homosexuality among animals, from what I’ve read, has more to do with dominance than an attraction to the same gender. Clown fish have the ability to go from being female to a male (or vice versa, can’t remember exactly) as necessity permits. Does this mean that humans should change their gender as necessity permits?

He is using the wrong definition of marriage. The issue with today’s culture is that extramarital sex is everywhere, which is not how it is supposed to be for people. If all sex was reserved for marriage (as it is supposed to be) then marriage (as it is supposed to be) is essentially a social license to make and raise children. Love does have a purpose in choosing a spouse, and sex also has the purpose of bringing the spouses closer together, but just because something feels good doesn’t mean that that fact is the purpose for sex.

I’m sure most people would agree that there are a lot of things that make certain people feel good, but in no way does that mean that it should be condoned or be the sole reason for doing said thing. Some people enjoy learning, some may get more pleasure out of learning than others. But getting/feeling pleasure is not the purpose of learning.

Your friend is too ingrained in modern culture. You would be hard pressed to change his mind. I feel he is really just trying to change yours.

I’d add that even where tolerated it was seen as not being the same as marriage in regards to the social and legal aspects.

I 100% completely agree with this statement.

It’s called durable power of attorney. Anybody can get it for anybody. Or guardianship.

Gays make it sound like they can’t do anything. That’s not true.

Last year, I was in an emergency room and my male friend stayed with me for hours. NO ONE asked what our relationships was - friend, brother, gay lover. NO ONE. And due to a condition I have, I can just check a box on a form and my friend can get access to my medical information.

Because of another matter, I called the company that handles my IRA, and they told me I needed to name a beneficiary, so I picked my friend. Five minutes over the phone and done. NO QUESTIONS about our relationship.

As I was recovering, I asked my friend if he would put his name on my very meager bank account. He agreed. We went to the bank, showed some ID, signed a few papers. Done. NO ONE asked about our relationship.

I plan to leave him everything I own in my will, and THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to declare your sexual orientation. I could leave everything to a neighbor if I wanted to.


Thousands of years of human history shows that what was common was one man and one woman having children and caring for them and each other. Gay marriage advocates point to exceptions to the rule. Animals, in courts of law, are not - by natural reason - EVER tried for murder. Animals do not have human cognitive skills, period.

So saying animals have homosexual intercourse means nothing. You get mauled by a bear, so you what? Sue him? Get real people.

Gay couples in a committed relationship? I think people don’t know that gay marriage does not equal straight marriage.


And some gays don’t even believe in the institution, so why is any government required to do anything for cohabitating gay couples?


You would think after all these years of pushing for gay marriage, and working toward that goal, that the following would not be the case:


So, forever, gay men have been living together and having sexual relations, and will continue doing whatever they want - even if gay marriage is never signed into law where they live. And the government should give them what?

And let’s not forget the “almost but not quite” gay marriage.

Commitment ceremonies.
Domestic Partnerships.
Civil Unions.

Can I contact the government for domestic partnership benefits for two straight, male roommates? If not, why not?


That infanticide, killing breathing born babies or at least exposing them and letting them de simply due to mother/father not wanting them, had a lot of historical support:

If you check out the information regarding various ancient culture, you will notice that only four cultures/religions/societies among the many objected infanticide.

Therefore just showing evidence that something was historically widely accepted, does not show anything.

Furthermore, while the issue of gay marriage is often non-obvious (some gays at least on the surface suffer from others critizcizing their choice), the issue of killing babies is hopefully obvious for your friend, e.g. that its wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

But as so many humans got even this simple thing wrong, your friend hopefully accepts that getting the more complicated issue of gay marriage correct is even more difficult.

If many people fail regarding a simple and obvious issue in a field (here the field is morality), for a more complex issue in the field one should heed the few experts, which got the simple issue right.

And who got infanticide right?
ancient egypts, judaism, christianity and islam. Considering that its at least obvious christianity and islam did a lot of copy and paste in respect to judaism (nothing wrong about copying true things) and considering that ancient egypts and jews had a lot of mutual interaction, the glaringly obvious simple issue of not killing breathing babies was only decided correctly by a single source.

And that single source also considers gay marriage or gay whatever to be wrong(though maybe ancient egypts had different ideas, but at least the other 3 agree).

As we humans struggle to get one of the most simple moral issues correct, we should not go astray regarding what the only source getting the simple moral issue correct has to say about more complex moral issues, unless we have some awesome foolproof argument based on tons of verified facts.

(E.g. the same source also indicates, regarding something outside morality, that earth might be 6000 years old. As we have tons of evidence contrary, we are save to hold another position. If we had evidence showing nothing being wrong about gay marriage consisting of 300 years of scientific research in various fields, comprising millions of repeatable experiments, then maybe we could reconsider gay marriage.)

This! Well stated Ed. And a quick reminder that marriage is not the end goal. The SSA community wants this normalized into society…school curriculums, media (it has already started), etc.


And they’ll do that by every means necessary.

Yes. In this case, normal means: it’s OK to have gay sex. No one can say it’s wrong and the best place to get that message across? Schools and little kids.


It shows two adult males kissing.




Marriage: a historical perspective

Gay Marriage: A No Show in History

Some scholars claim that marriage between homosexuals has been commonly practiced and accepted by various peoples throughout history. One prominent advocate of this view, William Eskridge, contends that same-sex unions and even “marriages” have been common in other times and cultures.

Responding to Eskridge, professors Peter Lubin and Dwight Duncan point out that the so-called “evidence” for homosexual marriage comes primarily from small, isolated pre-literate tribes. Lubin and Duncan point out that "a great many of the primitive societies deemed by Eskridge to be tolerant of [same-sex marriage] … have also been known to engage in other practices, such as cannibalism, female genital mutilation, massacre or enslavement of enemies taken in war, and other practices which was once held to be the duty of the civilized to extirpate."31

Furthermore, what Eskridge takes for homosexual marriage are actually male bonding rituals that he mistakenly eroticized. Alleged examples from ancient Rome, such as Nero and Elagabalus, only reveal the degree to which homosexuality was held in contempt by Roman society. In referring to Nero’s homosexuality, Tacitus wrote that the emperor “polluted himself by every lawful or lawless indulgence, [and] had not omitted a single abomination which could heighten his depravity.” This hardly constitutes an endorsement of homosexuality in ancient Rome.

Lubin and Duncan summarize: "There is no ‘rich history of same-sex marriage’ that [Eskridge] has ‘uncovered,’ that was ‘suppressed in recent Western history, and is only now coming to light.’ The ‘resistance’ to same-sex marriage is not limited to ‘Western culture’ with its age-old ‘anti-homosexual hysteria and bigotry,’ but extends to almost every culture throughout the world."32

On the face of it, theories about the supposed widespread practice of homosexual marriage throughout history lack merit, given the biological imperative of families consisting of husbands and wives producing children, which is a basic requirement for the preservation of any culture or society.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.