Gays and lesbians have been a 'despised category,’ historian says at Prop. 8 trial (generations, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Chauncey cited early bans in the colonies against "nonprocreative" sex and later laws that banned sodomy. Police in large cities and small towns over the decades used vagrancy laws to arrest gays and lesbians and then informed their employers, landlords and families about the nature of the charges, Chauncey said.
He cited a federal government report from the 1950s on homosexuals and "other perverts" and noted that federal law required intelligence agencies to fire suspected homosexuals.
"The fear of homosexuals as child molesters or recruiters continues to play a role in debates over gay rights," Chauncey said.
The fact it's even a political issue is sickening in itself.
I agree, but the differences between the political parties is stark:
For example, three-quarters of conservative Republicans say homosexual behavior is wrong. By contrast, nearly as many liberal Democrats (70%) say either that homosexuality is morally acceptable (13%) or that it is not a moral issue (57%).
Why limit it to two spouses? Why not have three ways and four ways? What's the difference - in for a shilling, in for a pound.
While we're at it - let's legalize plural marriage. Those persecuted fundamentalist Mormons will be cheered. Why don't they have a "right" to marriage any which way?
Why limit it to two spouses? Why not have three ways and four ways? What's the difference - in for a shilling, in for a pound.
While we're at it - let's legalize plural marriage. Those persecuted fundamentalist Mormons will be cheered. Why don't they have a "right" to marriage any which way?
Why limit it to two spouses? Why not have three ways and four ways? What's the difference - in for a shilling, in for a pound.
While we're at it - let's legalize plural marriage. Those persecuted fundamentalist Mormons will be cheered. Why don't they have a "right" to marriage any which way?
Yes. Gays and lesbians are very much in a despised category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Chauncey cited early bans in the colonies against "nonprocreative" sex and later laws that banned sodomy. Police in large cities and small towns over the decades used vagrancy laws to arrest gays and lesbians and then informed their employers, landlords and families about the nature of the charges, Chauncey said.
He cited a federal government report from the 1950s on homosexuals and "other perverts" and noted that federal law required intelligence agencies to fire suspected homosexuals.
"The fear of homosexuals as child molesters or recruiters continues to play a role in debates over gay rights," Chauncey said.
Originally Posted by jetgraphics Why limit it to two spouses? Why not have three ways and four ways? What's the difference - in for a shilling, in for a pound.
While we're at it - let's legalize plural marriage. Those persecuted fundamentalist Mormons will be cheered. Why don't they have a "right" to marriage any which way?
I agree. Why not?
I have no problem with it.
The reason is that marriage, under the common law, was a legal joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny. It was the blood line of inheritance that has dominated civilization for the last few thousand years.
In monogamy, it's pretty simple to deal with.
In cultures that do not practice monogamy, inheritance can become a nightmare to untangle. Just look at the fratricide involved when princes vie for a throne. (And clandestine plural marriage sects eject their young males from "the herd", to keep competition away.)
For the last three generations, Americans have lived under national socialism, and were indoctrinated to be good socialists. The importance of the blood line of inheritance and absolute ownership of private property was eradicated from our knowledge. That's why folks hold to silly beliefs that marriage is for "love".
Two people in love, do not need a legally binding contract to keep them together. The lifelong bonds of matrimony were created to keep two people together, and their property, for the benefit of the next generation.
The reason is that marriage, under the common law, was a legal joining of property rights for the benefit of progeny. It was the blood line of inheritance that has dominated civilization for the last few thousand years.
According to the professor, marriage was created to bring some stability to society. "Progeny" has been part of the picture, certainly, but it's not been the main factor.
Professor Nancy Cott, who has written a book about the history of marriage in the United States, noted that George Washington, the father of the nation, was sterile. Procreation was one of the purposes of marriage but not "the central or defining purpose," Cott testifed. The larger purpose was to create stable households, she said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
