Sparta got wrecked, and in the space of only a few centuries - Sparta could not arrest its decline, and could not grow out of its disgustingly brutal caste system with its sadistic cruelty towards, and pathetic dependency on, the Helots. The Spartans' cultish homoeroticism clearly helped sustain such an irrational and unbalanced political culture and anti-social degeneracy.

Corinth, Thebes and even Athens rained Hell on Sparta, and no-one misses it but some pseudo-classicist macho-homoerotic fantasists.

Sparta became a joke among the Hellenes, notwithstanding the homoerotic fantasies Sparta obviously perpetuates til today. A degenerate society and culture which could not even produce any sculpture or architecture beyond some few crude and infantile relics eliciting by turn amusement, pity and bewilderment when viewed against the glories of their Hellenic neighbours.

Interesting that the Sparta fantasists here on OLO ignore the fact that Sparta's homoerotic cult was actually based on an active sponsorship of pederasty. Sshh! Don't mention the rock spiders - it could upset our pet pseuodo-scientific theory about the Clockwork Orange and its predetermined/genetic sexual orientation!

Of course, a closer historical comparison in time, space and practices is the Notfolk Island penal colony where for a long period the majority of inmates were in de facto (but still sham) "marital" status all to the satisfaction of many warders and governors who often seemed more depraved than many of the convicts.

Craig Minns: Adam, I'm still waiting to have a really good explanation of what the "consequences" are for Christians in allowing homosexual couples to regularise their relationships as marriage?

You are being disingenuous by not acknowledging the suppression of freedom that has resulted from legalisation of SSM overseas.

Brendan O’Neill of ‘The Spectator’ observed that wherever same-sex ‘marriage’ has been legalised, “it has battered freedom, not boosted it. Debate has been chilled, dissenters harried, critics tear-gassed. Love and marriage might go together like horse and carriage, but freedom and gay marriage certainly do not. ...There are awkward questions the ‘freedom to marry’ folks just can’t answer. Like: if gay marriage is a liberal cause, how come it’s been attended by authoritarianism wherever it’s been introduced?” (Read more at http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9390702/gay-marriage-and-the-death-of-freedom/)

In France, those hundreds of thousands who marched against legalisation , were branded bigots, subjected to police beatings and tear gas, and arrested for holding ‘unauthorised protests’. In effect, critics of SSM were denied the right to protest and turned into ‘ideological enemies’ of the French state.

One of the first things the LGBT lobby in Britain did when they won the right to marry was to deny religious freedom by demanding Catholic schools be forced to teach that SSM is as good as straight, even though they do not believe this. In the words of the author Damon Linker, a supporter of SSM, the LGBT demands ‘psychological acceptance’ of gay marriage from all.

In the USA, the LGBT has been very aggressive in ‘controlling’ SSM opponents. O’Neill quotes Linker as saying “Americans who raise even a peep of criticism of gay marriage face ‘ostracism from public life’ … the gay-marriage brigade has created a menacing climate, where the aim seems to be to ‘stamp out rival visions’. Americans who fail to bow at the altar of same-sex hitching, from wedding photographers to cake-makers, are harassed and boycotted and sometimes put out of business. The ‘freedom to marry’ clearly trumps the freedom of conscience.”

In Canada where SSM has been legal since 2005, Michael Coren reported in National Review (New York), June 11 2012:
“It’s estimated that, in less than five years, there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings — in courts, human-rights commissions, and employment boards — against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage. And this estimate doesn’t take into account the casual dismissals that surely have occurred.

“In 2011, for example, a well-known television anchor on a major sports show was fired just hours after he tweeted his support for ‘the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage’. He had merely been defending a hockey player’s agent who was receiving numerous death threats and other abuse for refusing to support a pro-gay-marriage campaign.

“The Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, Fred Henry, was threatened with litigation and charged with a human-rights violation after he wrote a letter to local churches outlining standard Catholic teaching on marriage. He is hardly a reactionary — he used to be known as ‘Red Fred’ because of his support for the labour movement — but the archdiocese eventually had to settle with the complainants to avoid an embarrassing and expensive trial.

“The Canadian litany of pain, firings, and social and political polarisation and extremism is extraordinary and lamentable, and we haven’t even begun to experience the mid- and long-term results of this mammoth social experiment. I seldom say it, but for goodness’ sake learn something from Canada.”

Thank you, Raycom,

It is indeed my feeling that there is no authentic movement of homosexuals who want to marry (those who want can already marry now anyway, without the blessings of the state), that those who pretend to speak on behalf of homosexuals would stop at nothing but banning religion and burning all religious people at the stake, even those who have been marrying homosexual couples for years in their liberal churches - the latter will be pursued later on some other pretext.

Raycom, thanks for the response, it has taken some time. From your response, it appears you don't see any "consequences" other than the possible discriminatory treatment of those (Christians or otherwise) who choose to make a protest about the implementation of marriage equality. Am I correct in saying that?

I agree with you that those things are deplorable, but they are not the result of marriage equality, they are the result of stupid people being narrow-minded on both sides. Ecumenism is what has enabled the various religious groups to live together in harmony and it is what is required in this case as well.

It's a classic game-theory problem - the deadlock game.

http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/games/Deadlock.html

As can be seen, there is a best-case scenario in which cooperation occurs - characterised in the grid given above as [defect/defect] - whereby both parties to the conflict agree to forego some aspect of their best-case outcome in order to achieve a better overall outcome than is available if both sides insist on standing on their digs, or if one side "wins" at the expense of the other's defeat, which can only lead to further discord.

What you have done, in highlighting some bad outcomes that you see as caused by proponents of marriage equality is to play a different game altogether - the game of chicken.

http://www.gametheory.net/Dictionary/games/HawkDove.html

In this game, there is no possibility of cooperation - the rules of the game create such a huge disparity between the best outcome and second best, that there is an enormous incentive to "stay the course" (as long as noone thinks about it too much). This incentive is reinforced by barracking from the sidelines.

It's not a new game either.

Yuyutsu, if it is reasonable for someone to do something WITHOUT the blessing of the State, then what harm can there be in the State bestowing its imprimatur for doing that same thing?

Dear Craig,

The harm is in expanding a government function. This means more public-servants, which apart from taking our tax-money and keeping records about our private lives, support the continuing existence of government and its functions because they and their families depend on it for their livelihood. For every public servant there could be perhaps 10 or so people who support the government (through elections) because they don't want to see their relative out of job.

Yes, I support marriage equality - by disassociating the state from personal relationships altogether.

As I wrote earlier, I don't believe that those who currently promote marriage-equality have a genuine interest in that: they only use it as a pretext to bash the religious.