Timewaster's Guide Archive

Yes, Name of the Wind is quite derivative. However, that's not a problem. Rothfuss's storytelling is what sells the book.

Couldn't agree more.  Like I said, I enjoyed it.  Perhaps not to the degree that I never want to read another 'eternal apprentice' book ever again for fear of the comparison, but it was good.

I've never met Mr. Rothfuss but I hear he's a nice guy from lots  people.  The video probably didn't do him justice.  In it he spends A LOT of time explaining that because he's spent 14 years, (pretty much his whole adult life, which, incidentally, is actually a bad thing in my book) in academia, 9 years to get a bachelor's and so forth, he was uniquely qualified to write something really great and NEW in the fantasy genre. 

He did write something great, but it certainly wasn't capital N E W new.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxLG2wtE7TM&feature=player_embedded

I laughed really hard at this...thought I'd share.

Just got back from a 2 week absence.  And I must say that the dialog in the the episode of Castle I watched over lunch was pretty terrible.  I'll be joining Fell in my absence from that particular audience.

JK: If we are going to redefine it (because our modern sensibilities have changed) as simply "a vow of commitment between two individuals that happen to like eachother", then it no longer serves any function that might need regulating in the form of the institution as it currently stands, and we, frankly, would be better off without it.  Let's strip the gilt from an otherwise invaluable trinket, yes?

I didn't suggest redefining it as you describe.  And marriages/civil unions do/would have a function beyond the silly.  Many of those purposes, even ones that don't have direct beearing on the ability to produce children, have been listed by you so I don't really know where you're coming from here.

And think about this, Skar:  What function does marriage serve a woman who will bear no children?

All the legal reasons, taxes, hospital visitation inheritance, insurance, etc... But you yourself have already said all that so, again, I'm not sure what your point is.

It's simply a matter of words and titles, and holds no meaning.

If this is true, why not let it go?

Why are "progressive" homosexuals clinging to an empty, outdated institution?

Why are you?

Ah, but you've got it wrong—that's not equal, as it applies to women, and not to men.  It would be equal if both men AND women had to follow the law.  This, however, would result in no one getting married.  Ah hah! The current laws are equal for everyone, Skar (if arbitrary).

You've got me there. So just make the law require that the spouse be either 20 years older OR younger. Same reasoning still applies.

But instead, let's try this. The ideal is equality for all yes?  And you've said that we already have it, yes? (in the quote above actually) So, imagine that the law is suddenly changed to allow only couples of the same sex to marry. It would still be equal across the board because the same-sex stipulation would apply both to men and women (in the same way that the opposite sex stipulation currently applies to both men and women). You would be free to marry any dude who would have you under the law, but not females. Religions could still marry, spiritually not legally,  whomever they chose.  But the fathers couldn't be recognized as legal guardians or have parental rights over the children, wouldn't have legal rights to visit the wife while in hospital and vice versa, no legal standing for the wife as inheritor should the father die or vice versa, no insurance coverage from one spouse to the other, adnauseum.  I assume that since you're OK with it for homosexuals you'd be OK with it for yourself yes?

And that's exactly what I'm asking.

Very good then.  We're in agreement.

And my argument is that they have a problem because they don't understand the fundamental purpose of marriage, which a study of the institution of marriage through history helps make more clear.

Possible.  It certainly hasn't been openly discussed on a national level.  And perhaps the same-sex marriage movement would go away if it were.  Who can tell?

If you end up watching it, I'd be curious to know if you agree with me.

Jade Knight

...there are plenty of people that think that age shouldn't be a factor limiting marriage any more than sexual orientation.  To them, it is discrimination.  To you, it's simply common sense, decency, "protecting people", or whatever you'd like to call your own particular moralistic leanings.

You're right, there are such people, which is exactly why I pointed out that unless you're arguing that the legal age of consent ought to be changed, it's an entirely different discussion.

Simply because you are ignorant of the function ... it's a totally arbitrary, and somewhat ignorant, process.

Agreed on both major points.  Ignorance of the function and history of an institution doesn't mean its essence has changed.  And failing to understand the history of an institution while trying to change that institution is totally arbitrary and ignorant.  You are correct.

It is, however, the nature of the society we live in that adults are free to do as they wish within the law and to change the law as they wish should they gather enough votes to do so.  The historical roots of the institution of marriage should certainly play a part in the national discussion (much larger than it has to date IMO) but if you're going to claim that same-sex marriages (and by extension all the other permutations we've been talking about like polygamy and polyandry and chain marriages) will have a negative effect on society you're going to have to come up with a better line of reasoning and evidence than, essentially, "we've never done it before, therefore we shouldn't do it now" or even "we've never thought it was a good idea before, therefore it's not a good idea now" if you expect to change anyone's mind.

Ookla:

Skar, I don't think ... sum total reasons for marriage.

Agreed on the difference between passionate and mature love and the wisdom of marrying due to one or the other.  However, it begs the question, are homosexual couples not capable of the mature love you describe?  If they are, then those homosexual couples would be getting married for the right reasons would they not? 

Incidentally, in my mind you could have replaced "passionate world-shaking love" with "mature considerate love"  in my statement and the point would remain the same.

[EDIT: Anyway, passionate love has never been part of the legal requirements of marriage

Never said it was.  My reference to passionate love was simply an illustration of the desire to get married.

And there are legal non-marriage solutions to inheritance and hospital visitation, etc. In California where domestic partners are allowed all the rights of married partners they can file state taxes jointly.]

So, essentialy, homosexual couples are separate but equal under the law? 

A scenario like I described earlier, government handing out legal status to couples, and churches handing out their own brand of spiritual status to couples, or not as the case may be, solves that nasty "separate but equal" problem nicely.

Jade Knight:

Isn't that the truth, Ookla.  And divorce statistics ... divorce rates to be higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals.

You could very well be right about divorce rates ending up being higher among homosexual marriages than heterosexual. However, if there's any truth to the idea that the institution of legal/secular marriage encourages fidelity and monogamy then allowing same-sex marriages under the law would result in a net gain of stable couples in our society no matter how high the comparitive divorce rates.  That's a good thing right?

Incest: There are lots of perfectly good, scientifically proven, reasons to prohibit incest: balding insane women and children with flippers instead of arms, to name just two.  Though with modern genetic testing you could probably determine beforehand whether even a brother and sister couple were at risk for genetic problems.  Though that just makes an argument for denying close relations a marriage license on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket prohibition.

----------------------------------------
Can I just say I'm finding this entire discussion to be invigorating and mind-expanding?

Renoard:

Skar I wasn't limiting myself to homosexual men, I was including homosexual women as well.

Yes, I picked one case in the interests of brevity, trusting that the other would be implicit.

all individuals, regardless of class, are presented with precisely the same options and opportunities with regard to marriage, limited only by their own strengths and weaknesses.  No only equal protection but identical protection.

From one POV this is true.  From another, I submit that it could be argued that it's not true.

To Illustrate, I'll ask this question: Does a homosexual female have the ability to legally marry (and therefore inherit from, visit in the hospital, file taxes with, etc...) another adult with whom she shares a passionate, world-shaking love? 

And I'll give my answer:Since she's homosexual, and men are therefore excluded from the passionate world-shaking love equation, I'd have to say that she does not have that ability. Yet I, by virtue of my heterosexuality, do. Not identical.  I personally think that love is an important part, and ought to be an integral part, of marriage, civil or religious.

Shaggy:
...aaaand Ookla stole my answer.  Well said.

Yeah, I did look it up, before I posted the first time, just to be sure I wouldn't sound like a moron by misusing it.

Here on the interwebs there are things called links, words or pictures that you can click on in order to get more information or go to a related website.  There were two in my post. (Hint, in this case they're underlined)

Polygamy
po⋅lyg⋅a⋅my     [puh-lig-uh-mee]  Show IPA
–noun
1.   the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time. Compare bigamy (def. 1), monogamy (def. 1).
2.   Zoology. the habit or system of mating with more than one individual, either simultaneously or successively.
Origin:
1585–95; < Gk polygamía. See poly-, -gamy

and, of course,
Bigamy
big⋅a⋅my     [big-uh-mee]  Show IPA
–noun, plural -mies.
1.   Law. the crime of marrying while one has a wife or husband still living, from whom no valid divorce has been effected.
2.   Ecclesiastical. any violation of canon law concerning marital status that would disqualify a person from receiving holy orders or from retaining or surpassing an ecclesiastical rank.
Origin:
1200–50; ME bigamie < ML bigamia (LL bigam(us) bigamous + L -ia -y 3 )

For your edification, I've copied the definitions found behind the links into this very post.

Explain to me why we should take you seriously when you reference things from history but don't know the definitions of the words you're using?